Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skeleton of a dog diagram.svg

Skeleton of a dog diagram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2013 at 11:02:06 (UTC)

Original – A – Cervical or Neck Bones (7 in number). B – Dorsal or Thoracic Bones (13 in number, each bearing a rib). C – Lumbar Bones (7 in number).D – Sacral Bones (3 in number). E – Caudal or Tail Bones (20 to 23 in number).

Reason

As per Featured picture criteria,

1. Colour selections to illustrate the drawing seem ok to me.
2. This is a .svg file so resolution is ok
3. This diagram perfectly illustrate the encyclopedic article associated with it.
4. It has a free license
5. Although this image is not the leading image in the article, but it adds significant value to the article by providing a list of elements in the skeleton.
6. Yes, it is verifiable
7. It has complete description in english.
8. Not relevant

Articles in which this image appears

Dog_anatomy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Diagrams,_drawings,_and_maps/Diagrams

Creator

Przemek Maksim

• Support as nominator --Godhulii 1985 (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what advantage the coloured letters have. Why not simply write what that section of vertebrae is called? I would like to keep the same colours there for ease of distinction, just the letters seem like a needless additional step. Mattximus (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For individuals who are colourblind, perhaps? I'd rather keep the letters as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Same colour cannot distinct something. And to me numbers are like appendix of a book, if I were an expert in that field then that might not be necessary. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • (I think Mattximus means keep the RYBG in that order, not "Grey, Grey, Grey, Grey" or something) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - in the past, my SVGs have been opposed on the grounds that the key is not present in the image itself. This isn't a standard I myself support, but I think it's worth noting. The idea bheind the opposition is that the image (as it would be shared, copied etc.) is not useful in itself. Also I think the colour is distracting, given that I don't think it adds much but it does make the spine look rather different to the other bones, and thus the joint with #26 look strange. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Alt, without colour labelling of the spine sections

• Comment: I also think the colour distracts from the whole image somewhat, and overemphasises the spine in an image showing the whole skeleton. We seem to have another version (by the same author) without the colour, which I've added as an alt. Also, AFAIK the ischium is part of the pelvis. Should it labelled separately as it is? I'm not quite sure about the 2D perspective showing only half the ribs but four limbs. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support And I preferred the image with the colors— they were neither garish nor obtrusive, and helped convey important information about the content of the image. The image is well-worth supporting even without them, but I do not think it has been at all improved by being converted to a b&w image when the color that was used in the previous version was actually helpful for understanding the illustration. In any case, the image gets my wholehearted support! Also, I think the concern about the illustration of only half of the ribs but all four legs does not warrant consideration— this picture has quality that makes it look like it could have come from a veterinarian's text book, and I am pretty sure that no one is going to be confused by the lack of the second set of ribs which would do nothing to improve the image and might even make it more confusing. KDS4444^Talk 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, but with a caveat - this is an SVG. There's no need to make people cross-reference a key, the whole reason we use SVGs for these diagrams is that, in theory, they allow any language to be edited in. For English Wikipedia, I can't see how not putting the information on the image helps in any way; I don't think it's helpful to make people refer to a key several dozen times just to understand the information presented. That said, so long as a little care's taken with the text layout, I'd gladly support a version that loses the need to use a key. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Adam Cuerden. Do like the coloured version better, so if text was added, would prefer that one. Mattximus (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd add a line between the coloured boxes, though, to help distinguish it for colour blind people. They're rather similar brightnesses. Actually, maybe the alt, with a little, more subtle colour added? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also, does the partially-sketched-in right femur look like it's at the wrong angle to meet the tibia to anyone else? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also, is it just me, or is it strange to have to look at two different feet to identify the bones of the foot? Mattximus (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)