Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rock Cycle

Rock Cycle

 * Reason:Very informative diagram that illustrates this fundamental geology concept. This diagram has a high resolution and encyclopedic.
 * Articles this image appears in the:Rock cycle
 * Creator:Woudloper
 * Support as nominator ZeWrestler   Talk 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose Support Rather than have the lengthy legend in the caption, it should be in the image. Even better would be eliminate the numbers completely, and replace them with the names of the rocks. Then, I would be able to support this. Very well done. Clegs (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made the requested modification. -- ZeWrestler  Talk
 * Comment Is it possible to lower the noise? Dengero (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its been a while since I've used photoshop, what would I do to go about that?-- ZeWrestler  Talk 07:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Question, Does a circle around the inset images mean it is a process and a square mean it is a type of rock? If so I would like to see some mention of it, because right now I feel the diagram confuses processes and types of rocks.D-rew (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know I haven't noticed that before, but looking over the diagram types of rocks have square images, and processes have circles. It can easily be mentioned in the caption if you feel it is necessary. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant circles to be processes, and squares to be "reservoirs". Woodwalker (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This being a diagram I always try to advocate as much information as neccesary presented in the simplest manner, so, now that I've thought about it, I think it would be better if the difference was more inherent in the image. If you didn't notice its doubtful most others would catch it! I'm not sure of the best method to go about this, but I think that modifying the caption should at best be plan B.D-rew (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, needs some references for verifiability. Also, I think the look is a little hokey...  I dislike the background coloring--if they're meant to represent depth there should be some indicator of that and maybe better coloring...  Also, I think better fonts could be chosen or maybe it's the color.  It looks a little amateurish to me... gren グレン 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would the Rock cycle be reference enough, or are you referring to each image within the diagram? Also, given everyone's comments here, should I just build diagram meeting everyone's criteria?-- ZeWrestler  Talk 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The references used in rock cycle if reliable would be enough. Just, even images should be independent referenced. gren グレン 07:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I contacted Woudloper requesting the original PSD file so that I could change the bg and clean it up a bit but he only had a PSD with the numbers as layers - the rest was flattened. However the original had better quality which I think is incorporated in Edit 2, and I think the new text style is a little more stylish --Fir0002 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll support the edit by Fir0002-- ZeWrestler  Talk 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like edit 2; the image not having any text was my deliberate choice so that it could be used in other languages; but I don't mind it having text at all. Thanks all. Woodwalker (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * so then you support it?-- ZeWrestler  Talk 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I should as the original creator? Woodwalker (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, you are allowed to. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For me this fits into the category of good pictures for their article but not Feature-worthy. I don't think it looks great. Pstuart84 Talk 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)