Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chemistry

Chemistry

 * Reason:crisp, clear, illustrates the subject well and its used as the main image on the chemistry portal
 * Proposed caption:Chemistry, from Arabic language khemeia meaning "alchemy", is a branch of science. Modern chemistry focuses on the study of elements of the world and the bonds between elements. Chemistry also deals with composition, structure, and properties of substances and the transformations that they undergo. In the study of matter, chemistry also investigates its interactions with energy and itself. Because of the diversity of matter, which is mostly in the form of compounds, chemists often study how atoms of different chemical elements interact to form molecules, and how molecules interact with each other.
 * Articles this image appears in: Dielectric Shader
 * Creator:Mehran Moghtadai


 * Support as nominator Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous nomination here. Pstuart84 Talk 20:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, doesn't tell me anything about what a dielectric shader is or what it does. Fully deserving of being FP on commons, however. --Aqwis (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. What a sleek, iconic pic for Chemistry! But it just lacks that certain FP factor.. if I saw this image featured, I wouldn't think "of course, nice find FPC people", I'd be suspicious and look up its nomination discussion and see if it's some 3 year old pic that needs delisting. It just lacks that elusive FP quality. Hm, that should be a catch-all criteria so we don't have to make up technical reasons all the time to oppose :) -- ⁪ffroth 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Synthetic image, has nothing actually do do with chemistry, and the proposed caption has nothing to do with dielectric shader... --Janke | Talk 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This image was nominated in April of this year: Featured picture candidates/Glass is Liquide. Cacophony (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...as pointed out by pstuart above -- ⁪ffroth 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not high enough resolution. This was clearly a desktop at 1280x960 Teque5 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm also Opposing, it's a tad pedantic to object to an image on resolution grounds when it's only 40 pixels below the threshold. If it weren't for the other valid objections, you could simply extend the top edge of the image with a minimum of photoshoppery. It's not like there's any important information in that region. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW it's not below the minimum requirements at all; requirements "...are a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height...". This is 1280px in width so it's fine. (Some people argue on the useable part of the image however, so might claim the informative part of this is below requirements, but that's a hazy argument). --jjron (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, shallow and pedantic. On an extremely related note, STOP switching to *, :*, ::*, :::* syntax for indenting bullets! Everyone else on wikipedia uses *, **, ***, **** -- ⁪ffroth 01:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen both used actually. I prefer :* though. Atropos (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose While it is proposed that this image be representative of Chemistry, I fail to see how a rendered image is encyclopedic in this regard. If the 'dielectric shaders' aspect is expanded, then maybe. Also, the shadows from the glasses don't seem quite accurate anyway...is the orange one floating or something?  vlad§inger  tlk  03:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, it's already a featured picture on Commons, and rightfully so for its aesthetic qualities. vlad§inger  tlk  03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An excellent Commons FP. Not so useful here.  howcheng  {chat} 23:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)