Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerogelflower filtered.jpg

Aerogel insulation properties
Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2011 at 00:06:03 (UTC)
 * Reason:Adds significantly to an article about either aerogel or insulation, meets technical requirements, sharp and in focus, and a fascinating image in and of itself.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Aerogel (would probably work nicely on Thermal insulation)
 * FP category for this image:Sciences, Materials science
 * Creator:NASA/JPL


 * Support as nominator --– Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, switch. Weak support . Love the topic and the image is cool in a way. Have seen even more striking versions done with a person putting his finger there (by Aspen Aerogels).TCO (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I clicked to the NASA source article. Actually find the brick one even more amazing.  the insulation factor is amazing if you understand the weoight of the thing, but obviously lots of solid things like porcelain would allow also taking a similar image.TCO (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the brick image incredible? It's already FP on English and Commons, though. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 00:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I clicked through to the NASA page and there are several striking images. I find the ones with people holding them in hand the best.  Can almost reach out and touch how light the stuff is.  I think it's an amazing material and own a sample.  That said, I also (fessing up to something bugging me) find this image almost too pretty and staged looking.  The brick just looks cool in it's grittiness.  And the ones with people holding in hand, look more natural.  This one just looks too photoshoot with the dramatic pretty flower.TCO (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, TCO, the brick image is an obvious photoshoot as well. But ok. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What did you expect? A wild aerogel? Cowtowner (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess, yes, but I can't express what is bugging me, right. The sample, the flower, even the flame and the burner all look too perfect, almost like a painting.  CLICK THROUGH to the NASA site.  See the pics, just with people holding a sample in hand.  You can see from how translucent the thing is and how gentle they hold it, that the thing is almost weightless...is "frozen smoke".  Actually another unfortunate thing is this sample is so thin and we don't see the tranlucency as much with the angle.  TBH, I have a sample at home and this pic is not doing the material enough credit.  I might feel a little different if our guy had shot the image, or really written a solid article on thermal  properties and was using the image along with a bunch of discussion.  But, now?  Seems to much like a trick shot.  I honest, like a bunch of the other uploads better.  I think tranclucensy and even density (when someone holds it) can be conveyed well in the pic, but not thermal conducitivty.  (and a finger does make it more dramatic and "gritty").TCO (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose An interesting substance and photo, no doubt, but we already have a FP on the subject File:Aerogelbrick.jpg and I just can't see the justification for two FP's for Aerogel, if you can demonstrate significant EV for another article that this image would fit as one of the best examples of then I could be swayed against it. I'm not sure such an exotic substance would have much EV for Thermal insulation when there's far more "common" substances that would be a better subject for that article... — raeky  t  02:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Zee other FP doesn't cover the same subject. Previous one shows compressive strength. The the current one shows the stuff's insulation properties.©Geni 03:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then a D&R would be appropriate, but the Aerogel article article probably doesn't require two featured pictures, IMHO. — raeky  t  04:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would rather say that a D&R is not appropriate because they cover different subjects. Rmhermen (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I still consider myself somewhat knew to the FPC process, especially at en.wiki. Are other images used on the same articles always taken into consideration, then? I knew the brick one was rated FP. Should I withdraw this nomination based on the fact that the article shouldn't have two FP images? My understanding was that each image was judged on its own merits and how it adds to the article. Like Geni said, the brick image shows compressive strength vs. this image's heat resistance. (Though I didn't know there were kitten options!) Finally, what's D&R mean? Hopefully people can forgive the quick digression – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * D&R is Delist & Replace, a special delist nomination where you offerup a replacement, that people vote to delist & replace with your replacement... — raeky  t  05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. Yeah, I definitely don't want to D&R, per Rmhermen. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 06:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: As Raeky points out a similar image can be made with other substances and I believe I've seen a version that used a kitten instead of a flower. Is aerogel really the best insulator in terms of heat resistance and low thermal conductivity?--RDBury (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the article, 3" of fiberglass has an R value of 13 while aerogel is up to 105. Rmhermen (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per User:Geni's comment: This substance has many fantastic properties, one of which is illustrated by the brick photo (compressive strength), and another is illustrated here (thermal insulation). I don't see any problem with having two FPs on the same article, so long as they are not redundant, and these photos are not redundant. As for the technical aspect, I don't think anyone will argue that this photo isn't up to FP standards in that regard: it is in-focus, has good lighting, and is composed in such a way to demonstrate the amazing insulative properties of the substance while still highlighting the fragile nature of the aerogel by showing the "smoky" edges prominently. In short, I like it.- Running On Brains (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per RoB.  Jujutacular  talk 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, a photo is not the way to illustrate thermal insulation. I could take the same photo with a piece of cardboard if I was fast enough. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Or even easier with a metal plate. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You could make the same argument about the brick photo, or a number of other FPs. Cowtowner (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pedantics aside, a still photograph just can't show the situation in the photo is stable over time, and that's exactly what the photo claims to be saying. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that's what a photo's description is for. There are very few concepts that can be clearly illustrated on their own just from a photograph without a caption giving supplementary information. In fact, I can't even think of one! I'm not saying you're wrong to oppose, but to me your argument doesn't make sense.- Running On Brains (talk)18:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this, I know I've voted and it'll be counted, but really can't understand your argument. The information that needs to be included in this caption is how long the aerogel and flower have been in the current position, otherwise it does not illustrate thermal insulation. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also not trying to make a big deal, I'm just trying to make sense of your own argument. I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.- Running On Brains (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I think this image's EV stands on its own. Cowtowner (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)