Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Exact sequence

Exact sequence
Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2021  at 13:57:50 (UTC)
 * Reason:SVG diagram of an exact sequence, illustrates the topic well.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Exact sequence
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
 * Creator:Leonardo Almeida Lessa


 * Support as nominator – 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A bit too esoteric for non-experts (and so is the article... ;-), also not very captivating visually. --Janke | Talk 15:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto. Diagram is not intelligible to most readers. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree with the comments suggesting that technical illustrations are ineligible for FPC, but I agree with the comment that this is "not very captivating visually". And although the visual part of the illustration does a fine job of illustrating the general concept of an exact sequence, the textual part is more or less illegible at normal image viewing sizes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ineligible" - who said that? (Sca said "intelligible", you say "illegible"... Dang this discombobulating English language! ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You. You said "too esoteric for non-experts (and so is the article... ;-)" in a way that made those attributes sound like reasons not to feature this image. Are esoteric subjects not allowed here? (Also, to mathematicians, exact sequences are a very basic and important topic.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said, but that does not make esoteric images generally ineligible. In fact, they may be very interesting, drawing the viewer to the article. Not in this case though, IMHO. --Janke | Talk 15:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I said "not intelligible to most readers," and I still say that. – Sca (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree with David. Looking at the category here, the last addition was 8 years ago!, unfortunately. Bammesk (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not unmeaningless. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for more candidates, I have many many mathematics illustrations at Commons:User:David_Eppstein/Gallery. Most are very simple line art that I do not think would pass muster at FPC (the simplicity is intentional, as busier images tend to be less clear at illustrating the mathematics they are intended to illustrate) but a few go beyond that and might be worth trying. Part of the charm of the nomination here is that it provides a memorable and intuition-building 3d picture of an abstract construction that is not particularly geometric or 3-dimensional. But that charm is going to be lost on people who aren't already familiar with the subject, without the text it would again be probably too simple and diagrammatic as an image to pass, and with the text it's illegible. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've nothing against esoteric pictures becoming Featured, in principle, and an image can be visually striking even if the mathematics behind it is advanced material. However, I'm not sold on this particular instance. Particularly within the inner ovals, the text is both small and crowded. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 14:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)