Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/PaperAutofluorescence

Paper Autofluorescence

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 10:38:25 (UTC)

**Original** - Micrograph of tissue paper. Illumination is by ultraviolet light causing autofluorescence of the fibres. The image was captured through a blue filter to block direct illumination. Individual fibres are ~10 μm wide.

Reason: Great EV illustrating an interesting topic in a way we're not used to seeing.
Articles in which this image appears: Autofluorescence, Paper, Solid
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Materials science
Creator: Richard Wheeler (Zephyris)

Support as nominator --— raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if moved to Commons - I'd rather see a visible-light image of paper in Solid and possibly paper, but it's hard to see how there could be a much better example of Autofluorescence. Think it should be on commons, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now moved the image to commons. - Zephyris _Talk 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LOL. Personally, I would add it to the gallery in Micrograph, but it has tremendous EV in its current uses. Leaning support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Micrograph is a stub with 6 images already, we probably shouldn't clutter it up anymore then it already is until it grows beyond a stub. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Micrograph has a gallery that could accommodate this. Nonetheless, I Support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if this is promoted we might rearrange the pictures on that page to include it. I think this has higher EV then say the micrograph of a dog rectum. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and shameless self-support) Please bear in mind that this image is 9 images stitched to a panorama so kee an eye out for any stitching errors, I do still have the original images if there need to be any corrections made. I also support a move to commons, I really should set up an account there! I have added an indication of scale to the description - the individual fibres are ~10 μm wide. - Zephyris _Talk 13:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to setup an account, use the special page to create one automatically. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Specialized technical photography should be encouraged. This is sufficiently well done and has high EV. I would prefer the caption used at Paper#Chemical pulping rather than this one, which is based on the caption used in Autofluorescence. The Paper caption, IMO, will reflect better upon Wikipedia by taking a common and widely recognized subject and juxtaposing that with a very scientific, high-end image. Greg L (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, the captions used in PotD are much longer than the ones used here anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We really need a single FP category for the image. I would lean towards the science one. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally think we need another category in science for images of this type instead of Other... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would it be? We could always get a proposal going... J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you mean something like micrographs? - Zephyris _Talk 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe micrographs, not sure we have enough FP's of them to justify it though, open to suggestions. ;-) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't worry too much: Generally, we split off a category whenever a number of images begin causing classification issues. When that happens, we go through and resort everything. I'm not sure Micrograph is the best idea, though, since a lot of those images are better classified under biology, plants, or animals. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm. That said, Materials science is a very obvious one.... And one I'd been considering long before I left here for all that time. The need for it has only grown worse - created! Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with the addition, good work! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Good idea, I like it! - Zephyris _Talk 21:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:PaperAutofluorescence.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 13:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]