While
Diliff's mega-panoramas are a hard act to follow, I thought I would throw the metaphorical hat into the ring with this illustration. I created it with the desire to make a richly encyclopedic image/poster with lots of information about leaf morphology. There is a lot of jargon in botany (and science generally) and I think images that visually define that jargon are useful. The image illustrates the
leaf article, in the terminology section. Now, I know there is an on-going debate about illustrations as FPs, particularly how they scale down as thumbnails. While I am biased, I do think the thumb of this image is attractive in a symbolic/technical way (kind of the way a optometrist's chart or wanted poster could be seen to have aesthetic appeal). In either case, I am interested in your comments. On a technical note, I know you all prefer the SVG format to PNG, but I was unable to successfully save the image out of Illustrator in PNG. The fonts were screwed up (see
this version particularly in the margin section). If you have a tip on that please pass it on.
Nominate and support. -
Debivort 09:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Highly informative and aesthetically pleasing. So it's got scaling problems - big deal (not!). Surely, someone can put a link to the high-res version in the image caption for someone who wants to study it in more detail? -
Mgm|
(talk) 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support (added: titleless version). This looks better than most diagrams do in thumbnail size - the captions are readable, thus giving the viewer the incentive to explore further. And the graphic design is just excellent - if you ask me (and methinks that's what you're doing ;-) there's just one thing I'd change, and that is the slightly garish green in the "shape" and "venation" sections, the green in "margin" is more pleasing. --
Janke |
Talk 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Your diagrams are great. We need more annotators here.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Great content and presentation. I'd love to have it in SVG and clickable sometime. --
Dschwen 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Good remark by
Renata3. I second that. titleless looks better. --
Dschwen 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - The informational content, the logical design, the uniform layout... yeah. I am completely wowed. :o) --
Deglr6328 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - aesthetically pleasing and fully informative. One minor point: I can hardly read the small print. Therefore, I wouldn't mind a larger clickable image.
JoJan 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
The full size is ~2200x2300. Are you sure you are looking at
that, rather than the
image page? It might also be autoscaling in your browser.
Debivort 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Scaling issues aside, I am very pleased with the direction that recent Featured Picture candidates have been going in. This image is very informative, and very aesthetically pleasing. The only problem I see with recent images is that as they increase in resolution, it seems that users have to choose between small thumbnails/previews, and the gigantic full size. There really should be some in-between choice... ~
MDD4696 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Wow, that is a particularly great diagram. It would be really nice if it were SVG, but this version is certainly high-res enough to work. --
jackohare 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Obvious supportexcept for one thing. Could you cut off the title (where it says leaf morphology)? Please, it really disturbs me. That sort of title is excellent for stand-alone posters, but not for images in WP where they are properly captioned and goes along with bunch of text.Renata3 05:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Yay! Changing bolding and striking my comments. Thank you!
Renata3 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Very understandable even for non-biologists and highly informative.
enochlau (
talk) 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support one without title.
enochlau (
talk) 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support without title - typography of the title is ugly. --
Wikimol 21:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm embarrassed to point out a fault with this wonderful work, but the "shape" box is alphabetized in columns, while the "margin" and "venation" boxes are alphabetized in rows. -
Bantman 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's very informative, but visually not very interesting, IMHO.
Eyesclosed 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User's 13th edit. Other edits are FPC also.
References would be nice.
BrokenS 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Really? Even though these are definitional rather than statements of fact or interpretation? Almost all can be found in a normal online dictionary.
Debivort 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I prefer references for all non-trivial facts. I don't know enough to say if this diagram needs refs. It's good otherwise, though. Can you find another similar diagram in a book and ref it there? The FP criterion does ask for refs (in the article or in the picture description page).
BrokenS 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I can't think of an obvious way to do this. I probably used 15 different sources for it, with most heavy reliance on dictionaries. But I would note that it is not typical in a scientific article, for example, to cite definitions, unless they are idiosynchratic. If somone else feels strongly about that I could go track down references, but it would be pretty arbitrary which were chosen.
Debivort 04:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Very useful.
bogdan 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Leaf morphology no title.pngRaven4x4x 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
While
Diliff's mega-panoramas are a hard act to follow, I thought I would throw the metaphorical hat into the ring with this illustration. I created it with the desire to make a richly encyclopedic image/poster with lots of information about leaf morphology. There is a lot of jargon in botany (and science generally) and I think images that visually define that jargon are useful. The image illustrates the
leaf article, in the terminology section. Now, I know there is an on-going debate about illustrations as FPs, particularly how they scale down as thumbnails. While I am biased, I do think the thumb of this image is attractive in a symbolic/technical way (kind of the way a optometrist's chart or wanted poster could be seen to have aesthetic appeal). In either case, I am interested in your comments. On a technical note, I know you all prefer the SVG format to PNG, but I was unable to successfully save the image out of Illustrator in PNG. The fonts were screwed up (see
this version particularly in the margin section). If you have a tip on that please pass it on.
Nominate and support. -
Debivort 09:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Highly informative and aesthetically pleasing. So it's got scaling problems - big deal (not!). Surely, someone can put a link to the high-res version in the image caption for someone who wants to study it in more detail? -
Mgm|
(talk) 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support (added: titleless version). This looks better than most diagrams do in thumbnail size - the captions are readable, thus giving the viewer the incentive to explore further. And the graphic design is just excellent - if you ask me (and methinks that's what you're doing ;-) there's just one thing I'd change, and that is the slightly garish green in the "shape" and "venation" sections, the green in "margin" is more pleasing. --
Janke |
Talk 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Your diagrams are great. We need more annotators here.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Great content and presentation. I'd love to have it in SVG and clickable sometime. --
Dschwen 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Good remark by
Renata3. I second that. titleless looks better. --
Dschwen 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - The informational content, the logical design, the uniform layout... yeah. I am completely wowed. :o) --
Deglr6328 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - aesthetically pleasing and fully informative. One minor point: I can hardly read the small print. Therefore, I wouldn't mind a larger clickable image.
JoJan 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
The full size is ~2200x2300. Are you sure you are looking at
that, rather than the
image page? It might also be autoscaling in your browser.
Debivort 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Scaling issues aside, I am very pleased with the direction that recent Featured Picture candidates have been going in. This image is very informative, and very aesthetically pleasing. The only problem I see with recent images is that as they increase in resolution, it seems that users have to choose between small thumbnails/previews, and the gigantic full size. There really should be some in-between choice... ~
MDD4696 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Wow, that is a particularly great diagram. It would be really nice if it were SVG, but this version is certainly high-res enough to work. --
jackohare 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Obvious supportexcept for one thing. Could you cut off the title (where it says leaf morphology)? Please, it really disturbs me. That sort of title is excellent for stand-alone posters, but not for images in WP where they are properly captioned and goes along with bunch of text.Renata3 05:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Yay! Changing bolding and striking my comments. Thank you!
Renata3 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Very understandable even for non-biologists and highly informative.
enochlau (
talk) 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support one without title.
enochlau (
talk) 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support without title - typography of the title is ugly. --
Wikimol 21:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm embarrassed to point out a fault with this wonderful work, but the "shape" box is alphabetized in columns, while the "margin" and "venation" boxes are alphabetized in rows. -
Bantman 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's very informative, but visually not very interesting, IMHO.
Eyesclosed 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User's 13th edit. Other edits are FPC also.
References would be nice.
BrokenS 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Really? Even though these are definitional rather than statements of fact or interpretation? Almost all can be found in a normal online dictionary.
Debivort 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I prefer references for all non-trivial facts. I don't know enough to say if this diagram needs refs. It's good otherwise, though. Can you find another similar diagram in a book and ref it there? The FP criterion does ask for refs (in the article or in the picture description page).
BrokenS 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I can't think of an obvious way to do this. I probably used 15 different sources for it, with most heavy reliance on dictionaries. But I would note that it is not typical in a scientific article, for example, to cite definitions, unless they are idiosynchratic. If somone else feels strongly about that I could go track down references, but it would be pretty arbitrary which were chosen.
Debivort 04:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Very useful.
bogdan 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Leaf morphology no title.pngRaven4x4x 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply