Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brain

Brain[edit]

For comparison: Note the parietal lobe is very distinctly divided from the frontal and temporal.

Reason: Nominated by User:Cronholm144 on Wikipedia:Picture peer review. I seconded because it is a very clean, clear illustration that is heavily used on the encyclopedia. As a caveat, there is only one use of this image in the mainspace; the rest of the links are because it's in the neuroscience template. Enuja 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in: Brain ~~Template:WikiProject Neuroscience~~ Template:Neuropsychology
Creator: User:FSHL

Support as nominator — Enuja 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well, I’m simply the author therefore not really impartial and I surely won’t negate my own creation... --FSHL 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose: The exact folding of the brain is biologically meaningful, and I'm having trouble matching the ridges on this image to any photo of the brain I can find. Notably, the divisions of the Parietal and temporal lobes seem unduly indistinct: There's ridges that might work as their divisions, but they seem a little off. Compare this coloured image Now, there is some natural variation, and it's possible that this comes within the typical range. But I need to know what source was used for the ridges, and whether all due care was taken. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a.) its unlabelled and doesn't follow anatomical diagram conventions b.) it looks like its been produced by an automated raster to svg programme, perhaps thats not the case though. c.) the colour scheme is slighly off putting and not true to life, the brain of a living person is a fascinating shade of pale blue and pink d.) as a biochemist and anatomist who has dissected a human brain and held it in his hand, I can tell you that the folding is immensly important, infact it is without doubt the most important thing about identify the parts of it. I should be able to seperate the frontal lobe from the parietal lobe along a fold line called the central sulcus for example, but here I can't. [This, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lobes_of_the_brain_NL.svg] is an ultimately superior diagram which shows the lobes and folds correctly, although is still unlabelled. We have some marvellous diagrams from grays anatomy here and these are far superior to this as well. Please take all this constructively though and don't be put off, but theres more to anatomical diagrams than whats included in this picture. There are some quite strict conventions which should be followed. Usually the best diagrams are the simplest, the complex shading here doesnt assist in any way what so ever in my humble opinion. I suggest getting a text book on human anatomical artwork as they are seriously complex diagrams if they are correct. I hope all this is constructive and helpful, any questions please message me. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 18:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WikipedianProlific ^8thstar 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- why, it is lacking certain aspects of colour and the general resolution isn't big enough!. The sunder king 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! It's SVG. It has arbitrarily high resolution. Debivort 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be able to judge a SVG a suitable browser is undeniably necessary. Firefox without Adobe-SVG-Plugin (Mac OS X) e.g. isn't. --FSHL 09:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I oppose per the colour standards and the lack of scientific labelling, and per reasons above. The sunder king 11:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WikipedianProlific. I think it can be improved upon quite a bit. Cacophony 07:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WikipedianProlific. --Mad Max 23:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]