Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Meissner effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Meissner effect

thumb|200px|

Reason
The object/phenomenon being illustrated takes up less than 5% of the image's area, mood lighting is distracting and unencyclopedic, jpg artifacts, hardly our "best work". Ask: "If we cropped away the mood lighting, would this photo still pass as a FP?"
Nominator
Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs)
The uploader has been notified. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'd say keep. It is a really tough subject to shoot. I tried it a couple of months ago ([1], [2]) but it is hard to see the levitation and get good contrast. The mood lighting actually helps by separating the superconductor from the liquid nitrogen and the background. (Plus the angle is pretty good) --Dschwen 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A perfectly reasonable FP that illustrates the subject, I disagree that the reasons given in the nom is sufficent reason to delist. Cat-five - talk 10:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keep in mind that's a pool of liquid nitrogen o_o --ffroth 07:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's quite hard to reproduce, and it's relatively good quality. NauticaShades 16:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Sorry, but the nom is right: the subject is very small (you can hardly see that it's levitating in the thumbnail) and has severe artifacts. Although it is superior to the external links above, we do not need a featured picture of the subject. We do not simply take the best available (except historical images), we take anything above our set quality standards.--HereToHelp 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist A real toughie. Ultimately, it's a poorly reproduced version of a rather-too-arty shot of a fascinating subject. The "mood lighting" wouldn't fail it if it came up today; the tech quality certainly would. Bottom line: it doesn't have to be featured to be a valuable asset on the encycolpedia, which it undoubtedly is. FP isn't feature subjects, that's what FA is for. --mikaultalk 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I don't mind the mood lighting or the fact that the subject is small, but the severe artifacting is inexcusable by today's FP standards. It's a shame though. --Malachirality 23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Malachirality et al. Matt Deres 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, criterion #5. This image is far clearer and more informative. Chick Bowen 04:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Does not even appear in Meissner effect article (has not since June). The better photo Chick lists above is there instead. --Bridgecross 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Great shot - I think the atmospherics add a lot to image which really is about cool and mysterious science! :) --Fir0002 11:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There's nothing mysterious about science :) --Bridgecross 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Hehe true for most cases, but there's something about an object levitating in a magnetic field which instils a bit of mystery back into science IMO :) --Fir0002 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree with Fir on this one, that thing just feels mystical mysterious - sadly I can't look past the technical flaws (that quality just isn't enough), so I must vote Delist --Mad Tinman T C 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. MER-C 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)