Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Helium nucleus

Helium nucleus
Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 04:44:42 (UTC)
 * Reason:Striking image illustrating the huge size difference between nuclei and electron clouds. Top image for four articles, including Atom
 * Articles in which this image appears:Helium, atom, Atomic nucleus, Atomic radius, 2 others.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
 * Creator:Yzmo


 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The red box around the insert seems unnecessary. Kaldari (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is nearly infinite magnification, then I don't think there should be any red cloud visible at the centre of the atom. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested someone at the lab to give it a go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose No debate on the EV; it's just not visually interesting to me. Clegs (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Both I actually don't think it does have much EV. There is a wealth of information you could convey in a picture of an atom. This image only illustrates one fact, and it does it poorly. Since you can't see the nucleus at all in the zoomed-out image, having an insert magnification doesn't do much to illustrate the relative scales of the cloud and nucleus; that information is only conveyed by the labels on the scales.
 * The graphical elements of the picture are confusing. The gradient of the electron shell is supposed to represent the probability density of the two electrons, but in this picture it was probably just made using the radial gradient tool in a paint program. It would be more informative if there were some contours showing e.g. 'The electrons have a 90% likelihood of being located within this circle'. Also, if that gradient represents the cloud, then what do the gradients on the proton and neutron represent? They certainly aren't probability densities; rather, they seem to be simple graphical decorations. Also, nowhere in the picture or the caption is there any indication that the electron shell contains 2 electrons... this is a pretty basic fact. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, after reading the caption on the image page, I have to revise my comments. It appears the color of the electron cloud does accurately depict the actual probability density at that point. However, there is a more serious problem. By the author's own admission, the depiction of the nucleus is completely wrong; in reality the four nuclear particles are superimposed and create a spherical cloud similar to the electrons. I think this factual inaccuracy should disqualify the image from FP status. Fallingmasonry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ALT1 by User:Fred the Oyster added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose both I don't understand the purpose of this image. You cannot even see the sizes of the protons/neutrons relative to the electron cloud because they are not even shown on the picture for obvious reasons. So what exactly are you trying to convey with this image? I feel like I'd get just as effective of an understanding of their relative sizes just by looking at the scales themselves. 75.31.230.46 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, but if you want your vote to be considered, I would recommend signing in. Fallingmasonry (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)