Talk:Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

New cover image

I think it would be nice to update the cover image for this journal as the design has changed and the resolution is too low to allow for Page Previews. The resolution must of course be kept low for the image to fall under fair use, but slightly higher, around 275 × 365, is allowed. Personally I don't think most of the covers since the change in December 2019 are so good as I would not have guessed the topic of the journal from the images alone. The cover of May 2022 is perhaps best at reflecting the journal topic. What do you think? Ping @Espresso Addict who uploaded the current image. SakurabaJun (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@SakurabaJun: Thanks for the ping. Good idea! Covers since they changed the logo style (Dec 2019) have been ... well, dead weird is the phrase that comes to mind! May 2021 is the only one that looks like what they used to cover but to be honest it isn't representational. I'd probably go for one of July 2020, November 2020, September 2021, January 2022 as the "least worst".

I haven't been following the size arguments. The default width in the infobox appears to be 200px? (I think this is one reason why the current images often look so poor -- they've been scaled up, and low-res images behave very poorly like this; best to set a display width = the image actual width. As an aside, I'm sure this wasn't the case when I was creating lots of articles on journals; I think the infobox used to default to showing images at actual width.) So I don't see any obvious point in going any larger than 200px wide. However, I never look at Wikipedia logged out, so I've never actually seen a page preview -- is there a size criterion for showing the image? I'm not seeing one in the info page you linked. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I would perhaps go for January 2022 then.

You're right, the infobox default is 200px, and I don't think it's necessary with a larger image. The reason I suggested 275 × 365 is that that is approximately what is considered low resolution enough for fair use and I thought why reduce quality further? The difference between 200px and 275px can sometimes make it possible to read smaller text on the cover if you click on it. Not super important, but why not when we upload a new one anyway? As for the page preview, I have also looked, but not found an explicit criterion for the image to appear in the preview. I guess there is a limit around 200px. SakurabaJun (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

With fair use, there's always a burden to use the lowest plausible size/resolution for the specific purpose; it's not just that 200x275, or whatever, is the current fair-use norm. I don't think click-through with academic journal cover images is at all common (eg the average daily page views for the subpage in this case = zero), so going above 200px would seem to need clear justification. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's go with 200px. Then we'll see if that's enough for the page previews. SakurabaJun (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@SakurabaJun: Done. Let me know (ping) whether or not the page preview now works. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict It works! Thank you! SakurabaJun (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)