Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tazieffite (Mutnovsky volcano, Kamchatka, Russia (Color SEM))

Tazieffite (Mutnovsky volcano, Kamchatka, Russia (Color SEM))
Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2020  at 22:19:56 (UTC)
 * Reason:I'd like to see if this image can satisfy WP:FPC criteria as it illustrates - in high quality - one common mode by which fumarole minerals appear; as various crusts that form through the deposition on surfaces and hairy structures that form through a more self-seeding accumulation method.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Fumarole mineral
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
 * Creator:Ppm61


 * Support as nominator – Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * About "if this image can satisfy WP:FPC criteria": The pixel count meets the criteria, and is on the low side (1500px min). I translated and read the Russian description of the photographic technique (on the file page), the technique seems novel and unique. That's a plus IMO. Criterion 5 says "Adds significant encyclopedic value (EV) to an article and helps readers to understand an article." Currently this image is at the bottom, among several similar examples. So the significance of its EV is watered down. Usually FPs are positioned more prominently in articles. Are other images photographically superior and have more EV? If no, can this image be placed more prominently in the article (i.e. placed in article's body or in the infobox)? Can its caption be improved, in your opinion? Bammesk (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Being higher resolution than the current lead image and showing the same aspects, I'd say they could easily be swapped around. My only hesitation would be that the article is also nominated for Did you know and I use the current lead image there. Regarding the caption, I think mainly removing the chemical formula and the etymology information could be improvements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant the image caption in the article (to increase its EV). I added some details to it, feel free to change it. On a sidenote: I would also support the infobox image, it is only 33 pixels short of 1500px, I think it qualifies for an exception, it has almost twice the pixels "per unit length" compared to the nom image. Bammesk (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, that. Seems OK to me. Regarding the latter image, I dunno, would the extra EV (close-in detail of how such mineralizations look vs. showing the somewhat rougher appearance of such deposits) justify nominating that one as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, addressed. Bammesk (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you make electron micrographs in color these days? Or is this just manually colored? If the latter, then low EV unless clearly explained. --Janke | Talk 18:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the file description on Commons, it's neither - the colours were taken from natural colours and overlaid on the EM image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read about it in the longer Russian explanation. So it is a combination of a hi-res electron micrograph with a low-res microphoto in color. Should be mentioned in the caption, when done, count my for now  conditional support. --Janke | Talk 18:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added a sentence; is it clear enough? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the info is added on the file page and in the article (but not here?). Struck out "conditional" above. --Janke | Talk 10:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think this is an excellent photograph, and was just waiting for the problems raised to be dealt with. Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. MER-C 12:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 09:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)