Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Average prokaryote cell- en.svg

Prokaryote cell

 * Reason:this is the new image i did. the old one has been already delisted.
 * Articles this image appears in:Bacteria,Bacterial cell structure,Cell (biology), Cell theory ,Cell wall, Prokaryote
 * Creator:LadyofHats

(talk) 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A big improvement over the previous version. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have added your 'original sources' from the first image and I just want you to check them to make sure you didn't use any more or change something. Thanks. gren グレン 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, textbook-quality illustration. If the old version deserved promotion, this one does for sure. --Dschwen 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see why svg images should be exempt from size guidelines
 * I think an SVG can be arbitrarily sized up, so if that's the issue it's simple to solve. Or am I incorrect ? I am not at all sure :\ --Mad Tinman T C 23:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it can be as big as you like without losing any quality. I just tried to size it up in my sandbox to demonstrate, but I think I put one too many 0s and went and crashed my (ancient) laptop. J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not really very convenient though, why not just upload a big version to begin with --Hadseys Chat Contribs 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeesh, what about "scalable vector graphic" do you not understand? The image can be 10,000,000 pixels on edge if you choose. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-03-26 13:15Z
 * My point is that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to be accessible for everyone, not just those who have the software to enlarge scalable vector images --Hadseys Chat Contribs 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then someone can upload a version as large as you desire . Still, I don't get why a larger version has more encyclopedic value - and you have to understand, the only reason the size guideline is there is to ensure that the images have enough size for detail to be seen adequately, and since it's there at this size or larger, it seems pretty irrelevant... --84.90.46.116 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Above comment by me. --Mad Tinman T C 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need special software to enlarge the image, just insert it into a Wikipedia page and set the size to whatever you want. You could also just click through to the image itself, and right click on it, in most browsers there's an option to zoom in. If you want to edit the image or zoom with more advanced control, there are many free editing packages (Inkscape, OpenOffice etc.) which can handle SVGs. See Scalable Vector Graphics. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Still, it is a convenience for readers when we upload images that are big enough to examine the detail without having to go through any extra steps. On the other hand, images shouldn't be too large. For this image, I'd say 750 to 1000 px is appropriate. I agree with TheOtherSiguy that the flagellum lacks detail, especially compared to Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg. Also unlabeled is a large green sphere inside the cell; if this is supposed to be a featured picture, I want to see a lot more detail. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is an improvement from the previous version in some ways, but there are places, like the flagellum, that lack detail. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - . —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Info I tryed to upload a new version with fixed "robosomes" but it doesnt show, i will wait a bit and if not i will upload it again. I dont really see much sence in arguing about the size, the diagram is readable in screen size, is stetical in article size and is printable in any posible format and size you may like...where is exactly the problem with this? -LadyofHats
 * Oppose Lacks caption (the caption for the old pic was infactual). Narayanese (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an unnoted green blob on the left hand side of the cytosol that is definitley not a ribosome. Considering this diagram is extremely general I can't imagine it getting specific enough to show inclusion bodies or somesuch.D-rew (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)