Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Collage of sand samples

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2020 at 22:06:20 (UTC)

 
Original – Collage of sand particles, one square centimeter each, from Mongolia, Estonia, Hawaii, and mainland U.S.
Reason
High quality depiction of sand particles.
Articles in which this image appears
Sedimentary rock, and Sand
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology
Creator
Siim
My comment also was meant to express limited EV – and IMO limited visual interest. Technically it may be "fine" as you say, but not of general interest. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I ask is there's a big difference in the way the rules are written. Specifically, ours says "five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor". It goes on to say what consensus is generally regarded to be in numeric terms, but links to WP:CONSENSUS, which isn't about numbers, so it could also mean something similar to most other vote-like processes on Wikipedia, where strength of arguments matters (e.g. RfA, where it's largely determined by numbers, but when it's close it comes down to strength of arguments, with particular scrutiny on opposition arguments). Perhaps too much of a shift from the way things have long been done. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. I'm asking because of the "generally regarded" rather than "defined". I would be surprised to see consensus on Wikipedia defined by an absolute numeric majority regardless of the content. I brought it up because the use of "consensus" is different here. If there are no exceptions to the two-third majority, to bring it in line with every other usage of that term, maybe it should be worded more similarly to Commons? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I agree with David Eppstein (again). I strongly disagree with Sca; not only do I not really buy the whole "general interest" thing (is this part of the criteria?), but I think it's really interesting. It's not really clear to me how we can "settle" this disagreement, which I think is part of the reason that it's not part of the criteria. Not very scientific, but I showed it to my partner, and she said something to the effect of "yeah, it's really interesting - I love those zoomed in pictures. It's very Wikipedia - that's just what you want from an encyclopedia". Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To each his/her own. I find it only slightly more interesting than the pattern in the linoleum on my bathroom floor. But beauty is in the eye.
Sca (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
[reply]
Beauty's a different thing again - and very explicitly not part of the FP criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:00065 sand collage.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]