Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/MRI of Human Head Animation

MRI Animation of a Human Head edit

Original - Animated sequence of MRI scans of a human head.

Reason: This is highly encyclopedic and shows progression of MRI scans through a human head. While it is a bit small, I think it meets the criteria and is easily comparable in quality (if not better) with regards to, say, this, this, or this.
Articles this image appears in: Very long list, but most notable include: Magnetic resonance imaging, Anatomy, Neurology, Central nervous system, etc. See file page for rest.
Creator: Dwayne Reed

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose~~ Good EV, but it's small and cut off on the sides when the full head is shown. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

size exceptions can be made for movies. de Bivort 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think we can do better, especially given how common MRIs are. This isn't big enough to show much detail of the brain. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Oppose per discussion below. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose per Makeemlighter. The size doesn't really bother me so much as its being cut off, which is both distracting and (probably) fixable. Thegreenj 21:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong support - high detail for its size, tons of information, and it illustrates the brain, not the head, so the chin being cutoff is inconsequential. de Bivort 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it inconsequential. It's supposed to be an MRI of the human head. And even if the focus is the brain, cutting off the edges removes the brain from its context. IMO, the viewer gets a better sense of the sizes involved here if he can see, for example, the nose at its full size. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the head article. It's in Neurology and Central nervous system, for which it is very well suited. de Bivort 19:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What's the need for animation here? howcheng {chat} 22:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an expert on the subject, and I agree that still frames would better accommodate study of specific features (and could be larger). But in my subjective opinion, animation helps show the brain as a whole. The animation creates a sense of a three dimensional holistic perception of the brain that the viewer can piece together in his or her own brain.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't create this file, so can't speak for the creator, but I don't see this as a representation of single images sequentially replaced with time, just like I don't see a cartoon as a representation of single cels sequentially replaced with time. I see this as an animated "fly-through" showing the position, placement, and interaction of many different organs and parts of the human head (including elements from the digestive system, nervous system, skeletal system (this and this), optical system, auditory system, nasal system, etc). With that reasoning, I don't see a compilation of still-framed images begin a replacement for this file, only a supplement. IMO, there'd substantially less WOW factor. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But substantially more EV since you would actually have time to look at the various structures in the brain. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Even for an animated gif, it's small. Still, for reasons I've outlined above, I think it's valuable.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too small and too fast. Probably only a trained medical doctor can understand what's going on. Maybe separate picture are a more enc solution. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I respect your insights and opinion, I disagree. I think anybody with at least a minor introduction to human anatomy can identify most aspects of the animation. With respect to being small, I do agree somewhat, but based on precedence (see the three examples in the nom above: it's bigger than this and bigger than this in one direction), it's not that far off from previously featured gif animations. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those animations, however, are big enough to illustrate the respective concepts. This one is not big enough for me (and I suspect others) to identify, or even notice, the different parts of the brain. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Bigger still-framed images would seem better here. --jjron (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See above question about animation by howcheng. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no idea what I'm looking at besides the brain itself and the animation just serves to confuse. If there's a specific diagnostic reason or something that was adequately explained in the article and/or caption, I'd be happy to switch. howcheng {chat} 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]