Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Phyllactinia guttata

Phyllactinia guttata

 * Reason:High resolution quality illustration; very high EV–shows various aspects of this mildew's life cycle far better than a single photo could. This is my first 'restoration', which in this case involved removing the page yellowing and cleaning up afterwards. Props to all the restorers here, I can now sympathize with the monotony of point-click-point-click several hundred times... There are several dozen other high quality images like this I'd like to upload (and write articles for), so any opinions on how to improve my technique would be greatly appreciated (and implemented in future uploads). Thanks!
 * Articles this image appears in:Phyllactinia guttata, Phyllactinia
 * Creator:Sasata


 * Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Great illustraton ... talk to Durova, GerardM (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nice restoration, and I'm sure it is informative, but I have no idea what I'm looking at.  I think the caption needs some work perhaps with reference to the numbered parts.  The articles don't shed much light on it. |→ Spaully₪† 10:07, 2 May 2009 (GMT)
 * Ok, have added the info from the image description. Sasata (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this a restoration? No documentation at all of edits performed.  If it's a simple scan then that's fine, otherwise I'd strongly oppose until the unrestored version is uploaded, cross-linked from both the hosting file and the nomination, and the specific edits performed are documented.  Durova Charge! 17:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have uploaded the original at Commons as requested and added information about the edits performed. I'm not sure how to do the cross-links though. Sasata (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edit notes, and thanks to Michel for the crosslinks. :) Support; good work. Durova Charge! 22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I've added the crosslinks for you. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ok... "Other versions" ... I understand now. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see why a historic picture should be used to illustrate the article. Surely, a coloured SVG drawing can be made. --Muhammad (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose, if someone has the skill and inclination to offer their services for free to do such a task... are you offering your services? :) BTW, on which of the FP criteria is your oppose based? Sasata (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LadyofHats has made numerous illustrations, perhaps she can be approached. As for the criteria, #3. --Muhammad (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would still depend on her having a specimen and microscope available. Illustrations like this should be prepared directly from specimens, not from other people's drawings. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A good restoration, but I don't think the fact it's a historical restoration benefits the article at all, and I don't think it's a particularly clear illustration to begin with. I believe a more modern illustration could potentially made with improved legibility and encyclopedic value serving the same purpose using both vector graphics and colour. Useful, but not Wikipedia's best work, hence my oppose. -Halo (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree with these last two opposes. What does it matter if it's a "historical" restoration or not? Would it have made a difference it it were drawn in 1980 rather than 1890? In either case, it's an accurate representation of what the fungus looks like microscopically. About it being not clear, have you looked at it at full size? I thought it was quite clear, one of the reasons I put the work in to clean up the image. I also printed out the image on 8.5x11 paper and it looks great (to me). The oppose seems to be based on a hypothetical image that does not exist. So let's say I take the time to learn how to draw vector graphics, acquire the software to do so, and spend my time instead rendering this image in SVG format, complete with inaccurate/meaningless, but pretty colors. One could then just as well oppose that image because "a more modern and accurate image could potentially be made using electron microscopy". The reality is the images won't get restored at all, and those articles on plant pathogenic fungi will remain without any illustrations. (end rant) Sasata (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'unclear' comment is a reference to the confusing presentation of the image where each of the stages seem to overlap, mix-and-match scales, the use of shading that distracts from the image, and the poor legibility of the labels, not the resolution. If you take away the historical context and consider it on its own merits, you get a rather old-fashioned badly laid-out illustration that isn't particularly exceptional, lacks colour, makes poor use of shading, isn't particularly striking or exceptional to look at, and has hand-drawn lines that detract from its purpose of an illustration. I don't think this image would past muster in a modern full-colour textbook or a modern encyclopedia published today, for example. The oppose /is/ based on an hypothetical image, one that I think would be an 'ideal' illustration and thus represents in my mind the third criterion "Wikipedia's best work", therefore that's the standard I'm judging this illustration on. The standard that you seem to want me to judge this on is "the best image that Wikipedia currently has on the given topic" instead. I'm not saying it's not useful, I just don't think it's exceptional. -Halo (talk)
 * I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Thanks for the clarification. Sasata (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unconvinced because of the low level of visual detail. We're also missing a scale. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not an especially great illustration IMO. Would prefer a modern full-color SVG. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn by candidate => ~   ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)