Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Biohazard symbol
Biohazard symbol edit
- Reason
- This image is illistrative and infomrative, and enhances the encyclopdia by adding an element to Biohazard-related articles that can not be replaced by words alone. Since the symbol represents the entire biohazard field I decided to nominate it for featured status.
- Articles this image appears in
- Biological warfare, Trefoil, Weapon of mass destruction, Biological hazard, Hazard symbol, Secular icon
- Creator
- Silsor (image is on commons)
- Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Illustrative and Encyclopedic? Yes. Enough WOW factor to be a FP? Not even close. Clegs (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Like the Hammer and Sickle, this is a great addition its article, but simple SVGs just aren't FP-worthy. Sorry. Matt Deres (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose a perfectly adequate image of definite value but I can't agree that it's among Wikipedia's best work. Guest9999 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Though very enc. and informative, there's a reason why this page is called Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. SpencerT♦C 13:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...which includes diagrams and animations. Thegreenj 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose EV is there. But it's just a plain, simple photo... Crassic! (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support well done illustration of an encyclopedic symbol. Apparently holding illustrations to a slightly different standard than pictures when it comes to a need for complexity is beyond the scope of the opposition's views here. Cat-five - talk 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- It actually depends. These two here are iconic, however the constant exposure to them may have weened people away from the wow power they hold. This image, for example, covers such horrors as Biological Warfare, and represents an ongoing stuggle in society to to find cures for diseases who names we all know to well: AIDS, cancer, SARS, and so forth. Compared to my other svg FP here, these do lack a sense of wow at first, but if you stop to think about what each of the two symbols represents there lies your wow power. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you've misinterpreted what the "wow" factor is about (which is not surprising since it's not an "official" criterion). The "wow" has almost nothing to do with what the picture represents and everything to do with how impressive the actual picture is; it's a shorthand term for a combination of detail, scope, brilliance, and clarity - it's the aspects of a really great picture that make you go "wow" when you see it. An SVG of the earth symbol has no wow factor; a high resolution composite photograph of the earth, however, will. Matt Deres (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Off topic discussion moved to talk page. Thegreenj 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you've misinterpreted what the "wow" factor is about (which is not surprising since it's not an "official" criterion). The "wow" has almost nothing to do with what the picture represents and everything to do with how impressive the actual picture is; it's a shorthand term for a combination of detail, scope, brilliance, and clarity - it's the aspects of a really great picture that make you go "wow" when you see it. An SVG of the earth symbol has no wow factor; a high resolution composite photograph of the earth, however, will. Matt Deres (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- It actually depends. These two here are iconic, however the constant exposure to them may have weened people away from the wow power they hold. This image, for example, covers such horrors as Biological Warfare, and represents an ongoing stuggle in society to to find cures for diseases who names we all know to well: AIDS, cancer, SARS, and so forth. Compared to my other svg FP here, these do lack a sense of wow at first, but if you stop to think about what each of the two symbols represents there lies your wow power. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)