Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human karyotype

Human karyotype
Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2023  at 17:10:00 (UTC)
 * Reason:Quality image of human karyogram, it gives an overview of the human genome. The image is used in numerous articles (50+). There is a SVG version, but the SVG is not used in any articles (it has rendering issues). If and when the SVG replaces this file, then we can do a delist and replace nom. I had an easier time enlarging this file with ZoomViewer, which is linked to on the file page. Currently at Commons FPC as well.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Human genome, Karyotype, + many more
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
 * Creator:Mikael Häggström


 * Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as creator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Visual information is not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which featured picture criteria does this candidate image not meet? OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What about No.3 "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way". I feel uncompelled. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I intentionally kept any prose out of the image in order to keep it relatively language neutral, and indeed that makes it not readily intelligible without reading the image caption in each article. Still, in this case, I think that sense of incomprehensibility is a valuable impression in itself, as the complexity of the human genome is indeed daunting and, still today, largely enigmatic. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the criterion is "helps readers to understand an article", not "readily intelligible to general readers/viewers". Bammesk (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Criterion. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. We need more FPs that are encyclopedic scientific illustrations, relative to the huge proportion currently taken by postcard views, charismatic megafauna, and old poster scans. This is a good example: informative, detailed, and well laid out. Incidentally, the kneejerk opposition to including any such content, on display above, is a large part of why my recent participation in FPC has been so limited. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the image tells me nothing. My cognitive facilities are quiescent, and my knees aren't jerking -- Sca (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't oppose, but it is impolite to call a reasoned oppose a 'kneejerk reaction'. I'm capable of understanding many scientific diagrams, but I don't think this enhances the article enough for it to be FP. Without any text, I look at the image and click away. That is not what you want for a top-notch image in an encyclopaedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Text in illustrations is often helpful, but is not uniformly a positive thing: for instance, it makes them much more difficult to internationalize, compared to illustrations where the relevant text is presented in a caption. Have you ever opposed a photograph because it was lacking text? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually had someone comment (couldn't oppose as they were an IP) against a nomination because the scale was not labeled on the photograph itself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, leaning support - That is massive, to the point that you could probably print this on a full sheet of A2 paper and still be downsizing. How much information would be lost by reducing it to, say, 60% of its current size? (Honestly, it's a shame the SVG has rendering issues...) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chris, with this type of image, sometimes there is more to it than visual display, printing and such. Sometimes minute details are incorporated as a means of tabulating data (or information) precisely. That way the image can be enlarged on a computer screen and the data read off the image precisely. I am not an expert in genetics, but I see lots of grid marks, so that might be the case. Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair. My question was mainly driven by the fact that, even at 60 percent resolution, the text was perfectly legible on my display and it felt as though no fine details were being lost (the reference to the A2/poster size was mainly to highlight just how many pixels were there). Given that, due to the resolution, a lot of browsers have trouble loading the image, I was simply wondering if a smaller size would be workable to improve accessibility. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With slight worries about how it handles the sex chromosomes - it seems a bit... redundant to have both an XY and XX set without any obvious difference in the three X's, Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. MER-C 14:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 19:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)