Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2012 at 00:30:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- Unused, replaced by File:Liquid chlorine.jpg and File:Liquid chlorine in flask.jpg, both of which depict the element better IMO.
- Articles this image appears in
- None
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chlorine
- Nominator
- Crisco 1492 ( talk)
- Delist — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is always worth checking out any rationale when an image is removed from an article. In particular, it is commonplace for editors to have some pride over the images that they have taken the time to acquire. Article illustration quality can, and does suffer for it, so keep an eye out. Here is the relevant diff for this image. It is important to note that the replacement image was created by materialscientist. I'm personally neutral in this particular case, the replacement is better at thumb size at least. JJ Harrison ( talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- As noted above, I prefer the replacement as well (for its EV). Artistically, the current FP is pretty nice but... without as much EV it doesn't meet the FP criteria. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Technically well done, much better than the other two pictures: illustrates the subject just as well, does not contain distracting elements, and is properly exposed. Clegs ( talk) 10:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing against the technical aspects, but EV. An image not used anywhere has no EV, by FP definition. Both images in the article now, though technically inferior as pictures, have higher EV, and the current image cannot be inserted willy-nilly when the subject is usually a gas (i.e. it's liquid form is not as common). Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked Alchemist to weigh in here. I'd like to see what he says about the relative value of these three photographs. Chick Bowen 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep What we are see at the other two images? What is relevant? My opinion: we must see a yellow liquid: chlorine. The current FP image has the best quality and the best description! It shows us an valued educational sample! This image: File:Liquid chlorine.jpg has the false color for the liq. chlorine: grey-yellow, and low description. This image: File:Liquid chlorine in flask.jpg has a very bad quality. It is very noisy, disturbing background and has a very low description. I have no problems if my image isn't more an FP Image, but the comparison with the other two images isn't a comparison for me. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 21:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the image certainly needs to be in an article. Preferably chlorine. If it can be kept in the chlorine article stably, then I'll withdraw. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I included it in the chlorine article again. Hope for a longer time. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 00:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep so long as it's stable in the article, per Alchemist. Chick Bowen 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- Brackenheim ( talk) 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Clegs -- Extra 999 ( Contact me) 09:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It is currently used in chlorine, where it clearly has some use and value. J Milburn ( talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think is better than the other two images, and therefore it shouldn't have been replaced in the article in the first place. --
Elekhh (
talk)
19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- It shows something different from the other two images. J Milburn ( talk) 12:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2012 at 00:30:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- Unused, replaced by File:Liquid chlorine.jpg and File:Liquid chlorine in flask.jpg, both of which depict the element better IMO.
- Articles this image appears in
- None
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chlorine
- Nominator
- Crisco 1492 ( talk)
- Delist — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is always worth checking out any rationale when an image is removed from an article. In particular, it is commonplace for editors to have some pride over the images that they have taken the time to acquire. Article illustration quality can, and does suffer for it, so keep an eye out. Here is the relevant diff for this image. It is important to note that the replacement image was created by materialscientist. I'm personally neutral in this particular case, the replacement is better at thumb size at least. JJ Harrison ( talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- As noted above, I prefer the replacement as well (for its EV). Artistically, the current FP is pretty nice but... without as much EV it doesn't meet the FP criteria. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Technically well done, much better than the other two pictures: illustrates the subject just as well, does not contain distracting elements, and is properly exposed. Clegs ( talk) 10:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing against the technical aspects, but EV. An image not used anywhere has no EV, by FP definition. Both images in the article now, though technically inferior as pictures, have higher EV, and the current image cannot be inserted willy-nilly when the subject is usually a gas (i.e. it's liquid form is not as common). Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked Alchemist to weigh in here. I'd like to see what he says about the relative value of these three photographs. Chick Bowen 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep What we are see at the other two images? What is relevant? My opinion: we must see a yellow liquid: chlorine. The current FP image has the best quality and the best description! It shows us an valued educational sample! This image: File:Liquid chlorine.jpg has the false color for the liq. chlorine: grey-yellow, and low description. This image: File:Liquid chlorine in flask.jpg has a very bad quality. It is very noisy, disturbing background and has a very low description. I have no problems if my image isn't more an FP Image, but the comparison with the other two images isn't a comparison for me. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 21:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the image certainly needs to be in an article. Preferably chlorine. If it can be kept in the chlorine article stably, then I'll withdraw. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I included it in the chlorine article again. Hope for a longer time. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 00:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep so long as it's stable in the article, per Alchemist. Chick Bowen 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- Brackenheim ( talk) 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Clegs -- Extra 999 ( Contact me) 09:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It is currently used in chlorine, where it clearly has some use and value. J Milburn ( talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think is better than the other two images, and therefore it shouldn't have been replaced in the article in the first place. --
Elekhh (
talk)
19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- It shows something different from the other two images. J Milburn ( talk) 12:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)