Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chlorine

Chlorine liquid in an ampoule

 * Reason:Good EV and high quality picture
 * Articles in which this image appears:Chlorine
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
 * Creator:Alchemist-hp


 * Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support since Bromine is a featured picture as well, I don't see why this shouldn't be. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a good photo but too little of the image (<100x500px) is devoted to the chlorine. Much more of the bromine photo was occupied by the bromine vial. --Avenue (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Chlorine is a gas. It boils around the point where mercury freezes (-34 oC). In order to get a gas as liquid at room temperature, you need to pressurize it to over 8 atmospheres. Due to safety issues, the sample needs to be smaller because the size of the pressurizing container is proportional. If you look at the image, the interior quartz is as thick as the sample itself. Since quartz is neither very cheap, or super easy to melt, I think the present sample, with the quartz at about 1.5 mm thickness is reasonable. Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against the physical size of the sample, just objecting to the small number of pixels allocated to it in this image (and hence the lack of clear detail). --Avenue (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But it would lose a lot of composition points if you just zoomed in on vial. Plus, with the bromine image (and presumably others Alchemist-hp has taken), this sets a nice standard for images (i.e., they have a running theme, something you rarely see from article to article on Wikipedia).  upstate NYer  23:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the original is composed well. The refractions at the sides of the cube add some interest, even if they're not as harmonious as the ones in the bromine picture. I also like having multiple images with a common theme and layout, although I only see one similar picture (the bromine one) at commons:Category:Element samples. For me, though, these factors do not outweigh the image's problems enough for it to be FP quality. Others may have a different view, and I respect that.
 * Could a new high resolution close-up of the vial be pasted over the existing photo, to show more detail in that part while retaining the nice overall composition? Massive pixelation would be visible elsewhere at full zoom, but maybe that wouldn't be a problem if the transition between scales was in the featureless parts of the cube. --Avenue (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some chromatic aberration is also visible around the lettering. --Avenue (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The crop has the same flaws, and IMO its composition isn't as good as the original. So I don't understand why it is viewed as an improvement. --Avenue (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I withdraw to this nomination. This image is good (QI) but not good enough for a FP. I think I can take a better image (if I had more time). The creator: --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC) OK, Support for the crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC) OK, I try to take in the near future a new and better image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (strong support) Don’t withdraw (exactly). A closeup of the clear, yellow chlorine won’t illustrate it any better because there is no detail in it the closer you get. However, given that the ampule is so small, I would suggest merely withdrawing and re-nominating one that is cropped as tight as possible on the cube while maintaining a modicum of aesthetic standoff. I just love the angle of this shot and how it captured a refraction of the ampule chamber off the top of the cube. There is no doubt that this is of high technical quality; it could just benefit from a minor tweak to optimize it. Greg L (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just not interesting enough. Just because it might be the best photo of chlorine we've got, doesn't mean we need to feature it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support regardless of withdraw. Agree to the principles brought up by Greg L.  upstate NYer  23:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support One more element to cross of off the "need FP's for" list, I couldn't imagine a better way to capture a dangerous gas like chlorine any other way then something like this... Larger vials are more dangerous.... — raeky  t  21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It sounds from the above like he wanted to reshoot. I'd considering suspending and giving him the opportunity to do so.Fletcher (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

5 S, 2 O, with an apparent preference for the edit Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

[promotion template removed] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspended while waiting for new upload. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An other crop/cut is uploaded. I can't take a new other version in the near time. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Request for more input Both of the available versions now are crops - preferences? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The crop from Nergaal are too tight for me. I think my crop is a good compromise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My above “support” vote (wherein I suggested that Alchemist crop his original) means I fully support his crop. If the central element of the composition was the acrylic cube, it would be too tight. But the cube is secondary; the ampule within it is the subject matter here. Accordingly, I find this crop, with its minimal space around the cube, is an excellent compromise. Alchemist does fabulous work on his photographs of the elements and makes Wikipedia the beneficiary of all that effort for free. It wasn’t that long ago that the only place you could go for a photograph-based periodic table was to walk into a chemistry lab and look at an Alfa-Aesar poster on the wall. All that contributors like Alchemist require to keep contributing their good work to the project is some appreciation from his peers. I don’t see the point of quibbling over a few millimeters of crop here or there, where the outcome might be a missing element in the periodic table and a valued contributor frustrated with the arteeeests who inhabited FP when his nom landed here. Greg L (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Greg. Support the author's crop. Nergaal (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support crop as per above. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Alchemist-hp's crop (i.e., the one that overwrote the originally nominated version).  upstate NYer  22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)