Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sulfur
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 02:40:40 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
- Reason
- A 2.7 MP high quality image of Sulfur. Current image used in the infobox as well.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sulfur, Petroleum product
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
- Creator
- Ben Mills
- Support as nominator --— raekyt 02:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is good. But the white balance is green, it has too much noise (imo), and there isn't a good reason not to do a focus stack with something like this. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since Sulfur has been proposed, I've added two high quality alts of native sulfur. I think one of them could be come an FP. Nergaal (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- For minerals it should be one that could be usable within the infobox of the article for that mineral, for natural sulfur it wouldn't be used in the infobox since it contains far more elements than just S. As for the focus stacking, not EVERYTHING needs to be focused stacked and color balance can be corrected. — raekyt 02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose all First and second are not much sharp and the third is too noisy. Jó Kritika (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about the two new ones? Nergaal (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still has the same issue in that they're not pure sulfur and would never be used in the infobox so it would be buried down on the page, if used at all, so ultimately they'd be useless for the goal of having featured pictures for every element. — raekyt 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- But would be useful in something like Native element minerals. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Still has the same issue in that they're not pure sulfur and would never be used in the infobox so it would be buried down on the page, if used at all, so ultimately they'd be useless for the goal of having featured pictures for every element. — raekyt 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support original Good quality and high encyclopedic value Razum2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC).
- Oppose at all the main is simple, poor: low DOF, the other are minerals, not the real element sample. Missing also DOF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)