Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Collaboratory/archive1

Collaboratory

Self nomination. This article has been through peer review with no major changes. Thus far has proved to be very stable. I have recently added images with the proper copyright notice. It is well cited (using APA style) and has inline references. Thank you for your time, consideration, and especially for your comments! C22an 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article doesn't look ready, and starts out on a bad note: the headings are awful and don't meet the manual of style. Harro5 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. Now that you read the article, could you please be more specific? Perhaps give some examples? I would appreciate your input! C22an 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the headings violation the manual of style with captions, and most should be shortened. Harro5 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Headings have been fixed.
Oppose. Sorry, but not enough sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suspect there are further aspects of the subject that could be illustrated, but I'll support because the references are actually fine. Every statement seems to be supported by a reference. Quantity is not everything. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's missing inline sources, which is a prerequisite for FA's. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. Synapse. Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Synapse. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you sure? 2c... --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Quoting your reference, "complemented where appropriate by inline citations" (emphasis mine). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image:BioSc2.jpg should not be in JPEG. WP 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? What about Image:BioSc1.jpg?C22an 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because jpeg is a lossy format; png gives better results for pictures with less colour variation, i.e. technical illustrations, screenshots. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the explanation! That indeed helps! I could go back to the article (which is in Adobe format) and get a screenshot in png format. However, is that a strong reason for opposing an article? In my opinion the content of the article is more important than the format of the picture (particularly as long as one can still see what’s in the picture). I am confident I can find many Featured Articles that have jpeg images. C22an 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a reason I would use to oppose an article, unless the picture was crucial and the artefacts quite obvious; ~~however, a simple objection without reason constitutes a valid vote.~~ - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Right you are. And it all comes down to the mood I'm in when I read an article, no matter the benefit or knowledge the article brings to the Wiki community (and others). I’ve had plenty of “teachers” just like that in school… Many thanks for all your comments. Much appreciated! C22an 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Here: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed."
        Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, this is different from the rules for Featured Pictures and Requests for Adminship. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]