Support as nominator --
J6kyll (
talk) 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
oppose much more detailed images of cells are possible.
[1].
deBivort 04:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - far too unsharp for what an SEM is capable of. To note, it was created in 1982 - technology in this area has improved since then. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose and speedy close as per
WP:SNOW. The image is lacking in sharpness: the detail present just isn't enough. I say speedy close.
Elucidate(
parlez à moi)Ici pour humor 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't think three opposes is enough for a speedy close tbh. The nominator might get scared that we're speedily removing it as if we think it's obvious to anyone that it's not up to standard and it's not worth our time - they might not have realised how much better than this SEM pics can be. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I agree with Vanderdecken, SEM pics can be much better. SpencerT♦C 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
J6kyll (
talk) 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
oppose much more detailed images of cells are possible.
[1].
deBivort 04:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - far too unsharp for what an SEM is capable of. To note, it was created in 1982 - technology in this area has improved since then. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose and speedy close as per
WP:SNOW. The image is lacking in sharpness: the detail present just isn't enough. I say speedy close.
Elucidate(
parlez à moi)Ici pour humor 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't think three opposes is enough for a speedy close tbh. The nominator might get scared that we're speedily removing it as if we think it's obvious to anyone that it's not up to standard and it's not worth our time - they might not have realised how much better than this SEM pics can be. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I agree with Vanderdecken, SEM pics can be much better. SpencerT♦C 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply