Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Threshold formation.gif
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Threshold formation.gif, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 13:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Saumitra R Mehrotra & Gerhard Klimeck - uploaded by Beatnik8983 - nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It may be useful and hard to get but it's not an excellent graphic. It seems there is a window hidden in the middle. And the watermark on the right is ugly and pixelated. Last but not least I do not understand it. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)- Oppose. Not what I would call an excellent presentation of scientific data. It is a cheap looking screenshot, cluttered with widgets, a watermark, remnants of a second window. The transistor structure is not indicated, scales/labels are missing on the second plot, the height scale is not well defined and very hard to make out. Image description lacks basic information. --Dschwen (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not a single support vote is stating a reason. Interesting. --Dschwen (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to give a reason if it's obvious why you're supporting. I supported because it has high EV. I didn't think anyone would have such a hard time figuring that out that they would get suspicious. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is an easy thing to claim and even easier to debunk by giving detailed criticism of the illustration as I did above. Looking sciency is not the same as having high EV. --Dschwen (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to give a reason if it's obvious why you're supporting. I supported because it has high EV. I didn't think anyone would have such a hard time figuring that out that they would get suspicious. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- It wouldn't even pass as a QI with that watermark. --Ikiwaner (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the concerns brought up above - I would think that the graphics could be better, but if not, then the other imperfections that this image has could certainly not be present in the graphic (e.g. oodly-positioned watermark with a non-background-color filling for the "B", the windows fragment in between, etc.). ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
