Delist. As above and because it is easily reproducible. --SilversmithHewwo 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsharp? Really? Which parts are unsharp? Only the flower in the middle should be sharp, and it looks fine to me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Short Brigade Harvester Boris & ZooFari, please have a more careful look to what you are providing opinion on. The image is illustrating surface tension (of water) not the flower. It is the only article it is in. Please judge it in that respect. It certainly has some qualities, that's why it was promoted 10+/1- back in 2004 (which was already in the 21st century). Please reconsider your comments above. Elekhh (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, which is why I said only the flower should be sharp. The difference in sharpness between the flower and the water is one of the things that makes the image so effective in illustrating surface tension. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification. Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is some sort of misunderstanding here, as Elekhh points out, the picture illustrates surface tension. The surface tension bends the water surface around the flower. That is what makes the picture look "unsharp" there, the bent water distorts the ground below. But that is what the image is supposed to illustrate: the bending of the water. :) —Apis (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the insect on the pollen was what I had in mind as unsharp. That appears to result from excessive compression and/or insufficient depth of field, and occurs close enough to the water surface to be relevant. Durova369 20:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many other images in the article are far better in quality than this one, and much more desirable in demonstration of surface tension. This image is used in only one article and furthermore, in a gallery. With all due respect, my oppose still stands. ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 15:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, why are links to articles never given in delist nominations? Wouldn't that be just as courteous here as in promote nominations? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered that, too. It would be beneficial. Maedin\talk 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be beneficial if links to articles would appear in delist nominations, particularly in the case of missleading titles, like this one. Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title used here is exactly the same as the original nomination's title. It would be beneficial if reviewers checked that sort of thing before alleging that anyone is being misled. Durova369 20:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. But the original nomination did specify the article it illustrates right upfront, which makes you look differently to the image. In case of the delist nom, it was myself who was mislead at first look, hence my misreading of other reviewers comments. I did not intend in any way to suggest any bad faith by any reviewer or nominator. Elekhh (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I nearly retitled it surface tension, but went back to the original title out of concerns that the retitle would be criticized. Either way, 61K is an extraordinary amount of compression to accept for an image that anyone with access to water and garden flowers could duplicate. Durova369 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delist Agree with the quality concerns. Saddens me though: this image my first introduction to FPs. upstateNYer 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per the nominator. "61K is an extraordinary amount of compression to accept for an image that anyone with access to water and garden flowers could duplicate." Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 61 KB is the size of the image file, it's not a measure of compression? Compression in itself is not a bad thing, quite the contrary. In the case of lossy compression it can be a disadvantage if it degrades the image noticeably, but if there are no visible artefacts it's just beneficial. —Apis (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When an image 1200 x 900 pixels is 61 KB, that's heavily compressed. It's hard to go that far without loss of quality. Durova371 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Re: Apis, agreed, but here artifacts are very visible (typical jpeg boxes) and detrimental to image quality. As previously mentioned, sharpness is also insufficient. Thegreenj 02:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Any of the good photographers contributors can do better than this. This looks like a picture taken by me. Also, (don't take this as a reason for consideration of the vote) personally I don't think this illustrates well the phenomenon. To me this is more like a usual flotation. Air is traped in between the petals, the surface tension prevents the water from filling the air but thats it. Very different from floating coins or needles in which is the tension doing all the work. franklin.vp 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist There are better surface tension images that are featured anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which? And why aren't any in the article which doesn't have any good clear alternative to this one? --BozMotalk 10:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the alternative surface tension image mentioned is File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1 edit.jpg, allow me to strongly state that from a educational perspective the daisy picture, which clearly uses perfectly normal water is better than the paper clip image, which, due to all the cool photographic doodads, appears to have a layer of wax on top of the water, with water breaking through the wax at various apexes. If I were convincing students about surface tension, I'd go to the daisy picture over the paperclip picture, because one looks manipulated. I know nothing about the featured picture process, but I thought I'd let my two cents shine. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you'd just rip out the glass and the paper clip yourself? The lighting allows you to see what the surface of the water is actually doing on that image (that was the goal). If you suppose that the paper clip image was not water it wouldn't matter either - surface tension is not just a property of water. It hasn't been manipulated at any rate. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (much though I am concerned about agreeing with WMC too much of late). From a Schools Wikipedia point of view I would go for the daisy any time. (1) We have to teach aesthetics as well as science (2) the paperclip picture is very unclear scientifically (it looks like it is on a blue cushion (3) the daisy is memorable and interesting. --BozMotalk 10:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your vote completely, but I do agree with your thoughts on this compared to the paperclip image. No offense Noodle Snacks, but I do think the flower is more memorable. Maybe we could see a replacement in the near future? :) No pressure. upstateNYer 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment like Hipocrite I know nothing of the featured picture process. But from a physics point of view, the flower image does a much better job of illustrating surface tension than the paper clip alternative. -Atmoz (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the paper clip it floats only due to the surface tension (the clip is clearly denser than the liquid) while in the flower it floats by Archimedes principle and the tension only helps the air between the petals not to be filled with water. Also, the problem is not so much comparing the two pictures but the fact that this one is not quite well produced. franklin 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paper clip also experiences a buoyant force. But that doesn't matter. The effects of surface tension are seen at the interface between the flower and the water. -Atmoz (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, then how is that the flower picture does a better job illustrating surface tension if all the same phenomenons are present in both? I bet no kid will think that the paper clip normally floats in water while many (and not only kids) can think the flower is floating because of that. franklin 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The effects of surface tension have nothing to due with whether the flower is floating or not. Surface tension can be seen in the photo because the water is higher than the edge of the flower, but the water does not flow into the flower. The paper clip image is poor because it simply looks like it is resting on a piece of blue cellophane stretched over a glass. It does not look like it's sitting directly on liquid water. -Atmoz (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what I am trying to emphasize. The problem is that the caption of the image in surface tension says until this moment the opposite. PS: Not only water have surface tension other liquids can also have strong surface tension and solids are quite good at that. 01:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A funny example is this. Put a dumbbell on top of a table made out of glass. That's and example of surface tension! Even more, according to some definitions glass is considered liquid. Then that would be an striking example of surface tension in a liquid. franklin 01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concurr with Atmoz, BozMo and Hipocrite that the image has qualities which none of the other images in the article have, and therefor it cannot be said that is a less good illustration of surface tension and would lack EV. Consequently, I think it should be moved into the main space of the article rather than keeping it at the end of a gallery. Elekhh (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say it can not be said that it is a less good illustration of surface tension? Actually it can. The effect of the surface tension is not isolated there. Unlike in the one with the dew on the leaf, the ones with paper clips, the several diagrams, the one with the insects, the one with the minimal surface, the one with the coin, with the hand in the flow. In this one the tension is only keeping the water out of the petals. It is the same reason why a sponge floats. It is even possible that even removing that air the flower still floats. In living vegetables, unlike in living animals, most of the cells are dead and in many cases that space is filled with air. Thats why most woods float(see Xylem). But really the main sin is not that but not being in focus while it is not such a complicated picture to reproduce. franklin 22:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed alternative File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1 edit.jpg is totally unsuitable to the purpose at hand. It looks like the paperclip is suspended on blue plastic wrap (or maybe wax). Perhaps the paperclip image is better in some absolute technical sense, but it's utterly abysmal as an illustration of surface tension. I wouldn't dare show it to my students -- it would confuse the daylights out of them and I'd have to spend the next five minutes explaining that surface tension doesn't really work like the picture suggests. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paper clip was never really proposed as alternative. I would like to know also what is that way in which the surface tension doesn't really work as it is doing in the paper clip case? I would be cautious also showing the flower to students because you would have to expend the 5 min then to explain that the flotation is not really due to surface tension there. franklin 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order The paperclip image is not being suggested as an alternative. It is already featured in its own right. The conversations above revolve around which image depicts the concept of surface tension better, which is, essentially, an off-topic discussion. The daisy will remain in the article upon delisting (if that's how this goes); it will not be removed, it will only lose its featured status. Closer, please take note of this comment. Thank you much! upstateNYer 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist not good enough for the current FP standard, not sharp enough, dusty, low educational value (crammed in the gallery with bunch of much better images) --Caspian blue 01:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Grainy, flower is out of focus. Although the picture has moderate EV, Its not enough to keep it a FP. Tim1337 (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted --jjron (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
