Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Images of the human skeleton

Delist: Images of the human skeleton edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 01:19:11 (UTC)

Images of the human skeleton

Reason: These images were nominated in 2007 and I don't think they really represent our best material. I thank the nominator for putting the effort into creating them, but I do not think their quality warrants this tag. The images have an odd choice of font and coloured bars, have words that are oddly capitalised, do not use standard anatomical terms and do not use adjective consistently ("Humeral..." vs. "Radius head"). In addition these featured images should be in anatomical position which is an international standard for anatomical images. Lastly, the colour choice is odd, the lines sometimes intersect with text, and the body is oddly proportioned.
Articles this image appears in: File:Human skeleton back en.svg: List of bones of the human skeleton & Outline of human anatomy
File:Human skeleton front en.svg: Human musculoskeletal system, Human skeleton, List of bones of the human skeleton, Outline of human anatomy
File:Human arm bones diagram.svg: Acromion, Arm, Capitulum of the humerus, Clavicle, Coracoid process, Coronoid fossa of the humerus, Greater tubercle, Humerus, Lesser tubercle, Radial fossa, Radial styloid process, Radius (bone), Ulna, Ulnar styloid process
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skeleton back.svg (1st and 3rd image), Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg (2nd)
Nominator: Tom (LT) (talk)

Delist — Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As above, and agree the body proportion does seem to be off, with arms that long, the skeleton should be taller. Mattximus (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for interest, I measured myself. I am 180 cm tall, and my arms, held in the position of the skeleton's, measured from the top of the clavicle to the tip of the middle finger, are 84 cm. This is a ratio of about 0.47, which is the same as that of the skeleton, to my accuracy of measurement. I feel that I have fairly normal body proportions. 217.44.130.43 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ratio is fairly close to the norm depending on your shoulder width. A nice anatomical quirk is that your arm span when arms extended finger tip to finger tip should be roughly your height. It's hard for me to figure out what doesn't look quite right with this skeleton, perhaps the shoulders are too wide compared to the rest of the body? The proportions are definatley off regardless, especially with the thickness of several bones. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LadyofHats has produced some of our best freely licensed, de novo biomedical illustrations; I am confident that this is some of our best work, and that calling for its delisting is not productive. She's modified illustrations after consultation in the past, so this should be the first step. We don't have all that many professional illustrators contributing scientific illustrations to Wikipedia, so delist nominations such as this one should be well thought out. Lastly, as the IP contributor has suggested, the body proportions are likely within the range observed in healthy adults. Once we start to argue about averages, we run into the problem, "average of what?", and I don't think we want to go there. It may, however, help your understanding to note that this depicts a female, as stated in the file description. Samsara 17:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely something odd about this image, have a look on google and you will see that there is certainly some odd proportioning. For example, in this image, the femur is just as thick as the tibia. The cervical vertebrae are very thick. The triangle below the clavicle is very big. The rib cage expands sidewards strangely and does have the normal curvature. The lack of anatomical position means this image is in a naturally varus position. Although I admit I haven't seen many real human skeletons (most are models or drawings), this image doesn't reconcile with the corpus of images I see when researching in order to edit anatomy articles, and with these inconsistencies (whilst minor) I do not think this could be called our "featured" work, and I would not want readers seeing this image and feeling that it is other images which are inconsistent. I agree that addressing the issue a good place to start, Samsara, however I don't think the images as they stand represent best quality. LadyOfHats has made numerous, high quality images some of which I've personally used, and I'm very grateful. These are from 2007 and I hope she doesn't mind if they are delisted while the changes are made. How might we get in touch with Lady of Hats? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a concern about the proportions, the first thing to do would be to leave her messages through appropriate channels (there are at least three available) to ask what reference she used, and make an actual constructive suggestion, which I note this nomination doesn't do other than apparently saying that both sides of the body must be in anatomical position, which frankly I'm not sure I agree with. I think most viewers are aware that bodies are generally symmetrical, to an approximation. Delisting and renomming is, comparatively speaking, a waste of resources when a simple fix might be available, and tbh, changing the font is absolutely something you should be able to do yourself if there is an appropriate guideline that mandates certain choices. Just open the SVG in Inkscape and be done with it. It's a clear case of being bold and doesn't require a whole nomination process as a preamble. Samsara 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, WP has a process for delisting Featured Images. This image is not suitable as a "featured image". Hence I am using this process to get it delisted. Part of being on this site is expecting uploaded words to undergo scrutiny afrom others, which this picture is receiving. I am certainly not going to invest hours of my time learning these image editing and what note. I have "been bold" and cut straight to the point. As noted above and below it's clear other users share my concerns.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two do and two don't, at current count. I see that there are things that can be improved, but I still feel a delist nomination for something so salvageable is rather a waste of our resources. And I don't think changing a font in Inkscape would have taken you as long as typing out the above words. YMMV. Samsara 08:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some issues I see with the anterior view image:
- Cervical vertibrae are too wide.
- Distal third of the clavicle is too thick.
- Spacing of the shoulder joints is too wide. (Humeral head seems inferiorly subluxated.)
- Left thumb is impossibly over-abducted.
- Knees are in an abnormally vulgus position.
- Patella seems inferiorly subluxated.
- Tibia is too thick.
- Ankles are generally poorly represented.

I can't exactly pinpoint what it is that's wrong with the proportions, but the bones do seem unnaturally thick and the skeleton wide. I quite agree that the non-anatomical positioning makes the diagram seem rather unprofessional. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, support delisting as-is. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query In your belated "notification" (titled "A brownie for you") you state that two images are nominated. Which two of these three were you intending to get discussed? Samsara 17:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delist only if there isn't any better picture of the human skeleton by the end of this voting period --DUCK404 a (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for delisting the images. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]