Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cross section jellyfish en.svg
Jellyfish Cross Section edit
- Reason
- another excellent SVG by master illustrator LadyofHats. High EV, will become more and more important as the jellyfish sections of Wikipedia get fixed. (it's a mess there now)
- Articles this image appears in
- Jellyfish, Flower hat jelly gallery, ineligible
- Creator
- LadyofHats
- Support as nominator -- Nezzadar ☎ 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova331 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support- excellent and fascinating diagram, though it's not a topic I know as much about as I would like. Despite the fact it is only used in a gallery on the species page, there would obviously be a place for it in an expanded article. The EV in the main jellyfish article is undeniable. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support I likes. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Background needs to go and web-safe fonts need to be used. I'll edit if anyone agrees. ZooFari 02:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, have at it! Nezzadar ☎ 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. ZooFari 03:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, what's the difference? It doesn't look so nice in thumb format, now... J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Background is now transparent. As for the font I agree. However there haven't been any particular cries to swap out the edit, so if we don't like it, we can use the perfectly fine original. Nezzadar ☎ 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could we possibly transparent-atise the original, without swapping the fonts? J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The font was the main issue. It was converted to web-safe ("editable"). Whether it became attractive or not, it is still readable in thumbnail. I think web-safe is much more important then attractiveness, but of coarse, I should leave that up to the rest of the community. ZooFari 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, it the pages where this image appears, the gallery image is too small to be readable regardless of the font, and the jellyfish article is big enough that the font dosen't matter. It's a non-issue for this particular image. Nezzadar ☎ 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Correct. There are some images, however, with exceptional non-websafe fonts due to large file dimensions (if web-safe were to be used, they would appear completely messy in thumbnails). This one is much clean compared to others, so it's something we should be happy about. ZooFari 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, it the pages where this image appears, the gallery image is too small to be readable regardless of the font, and the jellyfish article is big enough that the font dosen't matter. It's a non-issue for this particular image. Nezzadar ☎ 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The font was the main issue. It was converted to web-safe ("editable"). Whether it became attractive or not, it is still readable in thumbnail. I think web-safe is much more important then attractiveness, but of coarse, I should leave that up to the rest of the community. ZooFari 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could we possibly transparent-atise the original, without swapping the fonts? J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Background is now transparent. As for the font I agree. However there haven't been any particular cries to swap out the edit, so if we don't like it, we can use the perfectly fine original. Nezzadar ☎ 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, what's the difference? It doesn't look so nice in thumb format, now... J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Cross section jellyfish en (edit).svg --jjron (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
