Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pregnancy.gif

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pregnancy.gif

An excellent illustration of the life-cycle of a foetus during pregnancy and symbolic of the birth of life.

Appears in Pregnancy.

Created by de:User:Christoph73 and cleaned up by User:Ilmari Karonen. Based on Month_1_sm.jpg to Month_9_sm.jpg from the National Institutes for Health, uploaded by User:Stevertigo.

• Nominate and support. --Pkchan 12:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent Sotakeit 12:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although it would be nice to have a larger version to see the fetus change more clearly. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-5 16:32
• Comment: Since I found out that this image was nominated for featured status, I decided to take the time to redo it from the original stills, resulting in fewer compression artifacts and better color reproduction. The new version also uses a nicer serif font for the titles; if you're seeing a version with a sans-serif font, refresh your browser cache. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading the instructions, I realize I should've uploaded with a different name instead. Sorry. I'll leave it as is for now rather than mess things up further by trying to undo my mistake, but if anyone feels it'd be better to reupload and revert the original, feel free to do so. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• A somewhat biased support. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Very good indeed! ~ Veledan • Talk 21:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't it read something like, "5th month" or "5 months"? "5. month" is just gramatically wrong. And also, is a bigger version available? - JPM | 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should. The German original had "1. Monat" etc. I can fix it easily, either with weeks or with months. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support very informative and professional looking. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It is a fine image. Is there anyway to change the 1. month to 4 weeks as pregnancy is actually calculated in weeks?--Dakota ~ ° 07:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So the numbers would then go 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has anyone contacted the webmaster of the NIH website where these images came from to make sure that these images were actually made by someone working for the US federal government? US government sites often use images they've merely licensed from other sources... I'd ask myself, but there doesn't appear to be enough info on the image pages. If no one has, I'm going to oppose. --Gmaxwell 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Need to ask Stevertigo, I suppose. Will do that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The look very much like A.D.A.M. images to me (www.adam.com) which would mean that they are a copyvio.--nixie 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well done. Very accurately and helpfully displays the various stages. I would prefer it if the above changes (time in weeks and 5th instead of 5.) were made, but I still support it even if those changes aren't made. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support but JPM is right - the ordinal numbers should be corrected before the picture is promoted Calderwood 11:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: could it be edited to adjust the "1. month" "2. month" etc. Having a dot after the number is a German convention and since we are the English Wikipedia I prefer it to read "1st month"...etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, provided that: 1 - license is OK, 2 - month numbering fixed. --Janke | Talk 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• 1. Regarding the "month numbering", it should be "5 months" "6 months" etc, not the current 1.Month... Weeks are the usual unit of measure in obstetrics; however directly converting it from our end conveys a misleading picture if the original medical illustrator drew it for (and used) "months". 2. This looks very much like an A.D.A.M.s image; until the source is located this should not be promoted. —Encephalon 07:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support If I support if the grammar is all right (see above). Apart from that, excellent depiction and animated GIF! Alvinrune ^TALK 22:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice detail, but i also agree the number needs to be changed --Ali K 14:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support if and only if the captions are changed to weeks (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36) Neutrality^talk 21:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Neutrality - Support if and only if the captions are changed to weeks (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36) Johntex\^talk 03:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As I've seen no response from Stevertigo, I've sent an e-mail to A.D.A.M. and the NIH asking for their help in determining the copyright status of the original images. I've also asked them, should the images turn out to be copyrighted, to consider releasing them under a free license. One can always hope... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support' Great picture: good quality, simple to understand, clear, to the point, relatively small in size 147Kbyte for 9 pictures). Notice that even the breasts are shown to grow. Msoos 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted It is obvious that this picture has a consensus of support (including from me) but it can't be promoted while its copyright is in question. If you get a favourable reply to your emails (fingers crossed), I'd recommend re-nominating it immediately and it'll surely be promoted (especially if you can adjust the text to read Month 2 etc) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I've just received an email from A.D.A.M. saying that they do not recognize these images. Still no word from the NIH, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Update 2: I've found the source for the original images: [1]. Unfortunately the copyright for the images on that site is owned by the National Physicians Center for Family Resources. I contacted them to ask for permission, but they did not want to allow commercial use. Sadly, that means these images have to go. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)