Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/DrugChart

I've relocated the lengthy comment discussions here to unclutter the voting page. --Thoric 23:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - Note: the nomination was for the image with the overlying wiki-links. The actual image is meant to be a clean and light diagram.  It is also not subjective as the grouping is based on existing medical drug classifications. (As for the "meaningless" comment, according to the top of this article -- "the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Pictures that are striking but do not illustrate an article can be submitted to Featured picture candidates on the Wikimedia commons.")  --Thoric 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. This sort of nomination should be valid and the diagram does add significantly to the article. We just have to figure out how to handle it on FPC (if we can). -- Solipsist 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If indeed "the grouping is based on existing medical drug classifications," then where are the citations? These groupings are subjective and constitute original research byThoric. --65.87.105.2 21:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They are common knowledge. I've added some citations to the talk page, and will add more if requested.
 * I have asked the creator to cite one source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics as depicted in his chart. He has been unable to do so. If there is no source, then this is clearly original research prohibited in wiki.--65.87.105.2 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I added an image to hopefully solve this problem. Please base your votes on the image containing the text labels.  --Thoric 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still against it. Yes, it adds to the article, but I can't see that this is really special in any way. It is not terribly creative, such things have been made before I'm sure. It's nor too striking, so I'm still holding my oppose stance. --Vidarlo 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to find an example of something similar. How is this any less "creative" than something such as Downtown Chicago plan?  --Thoric 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is more creative than image:Chigaco_top_down_view.png, and I do see that it contributes to the article. I don't think either belongs to featured pictures. It ain't a extremely nice, such as others that has been presented, but I agree in that it adds a lot to the article. So, whilst I've moderated myself, I'm still against it. --Vidarlo 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I respect your decision.