Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/E coli at 10000x, original.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

E. coli[edit]

1. E. coli magnified 10,000 times
2. Original larger image

Interesting and detailed 10,000x magnification of E. coli using a scanning electron microscope. The image is used in the subject's article.

  • Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 14:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks cool! Hole in the wall 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Needs a more detailed caption. —Keenan Pepper 17:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This one isn't quite as sharp as it could be, despite having been previously sharpened in such a way as to create halos. However that's not enough of an annoyance for me to oppose. Overall I like it. -- moondigger 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think at that resolution it could really be "sharp" in the same way as normally-photographed images. For comparison, see the second-to-last image in the series of this featured picture. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-16 21:02
      • Agreed that it can't be sharp the same way other images are. However I have seen subjectively sharp SEM images that don't have the characteristic USM halos. -- moondigger 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And they were probably at a lesser magnification. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 00:11
  • Support. —Keenan Pepper 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Blurry- but for being that close, I assume it would be. Cab02 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support per above--Vircabutar 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support blur lets it down but obviously not an easy pic to get Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neutral. While Brian0918's photo of the yellow mite hit a home run, this photo didnt even make it past first base... -- AJ24 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err.... What does that mean? Does the image have any problems that can be fixed? What exactly is your reason for opposing? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-18 01:04
    • Err... baseball analogy. In depth, I find the E Coli imagery to be of the same category, type as the Yellow Mite. The Yellow mite image was beyond excellent (the detail), but the E Coli image does not have anywhere close to the same degree of excellence. If it is possible to get an image of the E Coli with greater detail or clarity, then im sure it would receive the same praise the yellow mite photo has recently seen. Thank you. -- AJ24 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The detail on the mite image looks much greater because the magnification is much lower on the mite image. If you want to compare them side-by-side, you are getting much more detail in this image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-18 05:19
  • I've found and uploaded the original larger image that this image was based on. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-18 05:14
    • Much better quality and imagery, thank you. Even though I personally am not too fond of it, Ive changed my vote to neutral for a better chance of a consensus. Good luck. -- AJ24 05:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak wupport. Either, but I prefer the original. Per above.say1988 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support larger version. Very nice and otherworldy - most people haven't really seen photographs of stuff this close-up before. --Cyde↔Weys 17:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either -- Samir धर्म 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I really can't decide... It is very exncyclopedic, meets resolution/size requirements, but it just doesn't seem like a great picture to me... Viva La Vie Boheme 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 8 edits outside user page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:58
      • Brian, just so you ought to know, I have been editing Wikipedia for a LONG time. You cannot judge from my edits. I did a lot of work under just my IP, and I had a user name a long time ago, however, I forgot the password. I recently picked up three years later, and I just recently created an account. So stop judging me! 10 edits or 10000 edits, my opinion is valid. I also had two successful FP's on the old account.Viva La Vie Boheme 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 02:51
  • Support - fascinating image. Jono (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - It does not strike me as interesting. Little lumps. HighInBC 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that no photographs of bacteria that are shaped like "little lumps" should ever become featured? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-23 19:58

Promoted Image:E_coli_at_10000x,_original.jpg Raven4x4x 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/E_coli_at_10000x,_original.jpg&oldid=1136456627"