Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gram stain of Candida albicans

Candida albicans edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2021 at 07:46:08 (UTC)

Original – A photomicrograph of a vaginal smear of Candida albicans using the Gram-stain technique. The small oval chlamydospores are 2-4 µm in diameter.

Reason: This is a high resolution (within the constraints of optical microscopy) micrograph of an important pathogen. The magnification of the original NEF image is around 1,000 times. On most PC screens it will be around 5,000 times, but much of this will be dead magnification. The image shows the hyphae (filaments) and the oval and elliptical chlamydospores stained blue-black. The pink blobs are vaginal epithelial cells and the dark granules are common artefacts of the Gram-stain. (Note: microscope lenses do not have F-numbers they have Numerical apertures, this one was NA 1.25 and oil immersion).
Articles in which this image appears: Candidiasis, Candida albicans, Yeast, Gram stain, Chlamydospore, Fungus
FP category for this image: Fungi
Creator: Graham Beards

Support as nominator – Graham Beards (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it is to add significantly to the Candida albicans article, why is it not in the infobox? The colours are presumably artifical stains. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also shows the Gram-stain method. In Microbiology, and Histology, Immunology, and Haematology stains are used all the time. They are an important aid to diagnosis of diseases. Bacteria are classified on the basis of the Gram stain, as Gram Positive and Gram Negative, yeasts are Gram-positive as shown here. It has replaced the (not very informative) scanning EM image in the Candida albicans taxobox.--Graham Beards (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Meaningless to most readers. (What's next? Rorschach blots?) – Sca (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that "Meaningful to most readers" was a criterion. Graham Beards (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a criterion, it's an invalid oppose rationale. We are an encyclopedia, we go by notability. We don't go by most readers. We are not a journal, magazine or newspaper. Bammesk (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your enlightening expostulation. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #7 says the file description should be "descriptive, informative and complete". The description on the file page should be more comprehensive (the details in this nomination can be added). It helps to specify the approximate width of the depiction, knowing the size is important. This is now the lead image in two articles. Criterion #5 suggests waiting 7 days, I think a renomination (in a few weeks) has a better chance. What are the small dots (concentric circles)? there are lots of them at full size (100% magnification). Bammesk (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will follow your advice on the description. The "dots" are minute bubbles, less than a fraction of a micron in diameter, in the mounting medium (in this case DPX). They are caused by quantum phenomenon.--Graham Beards (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]