Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metabolic Metro Map.svg

File:Metabolic Metro Map.svg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2016 at 09:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chakazul, clickable version at Template:Metabolic metro -- Chakazul (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chakazul (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's pretty and interesting enough for a feature, in my opinion, but it certainly requires more explanation for the reader who lacks a background in biochemistry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can appreciate the effort gone into this, but it's too noisy and too technical to be featured, I think. ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 01:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support First, I can't see any visible noise here. This is a diagram with a very high encyclopedic value, the more so as a clickable version is available (see en:Metabolic network). For discussion among scientists, see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology#New map of Metabolic Pathways. --Cayambe (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. This to me is more the sort of art-type thing that is really out of Commons' scope, unless the idea is to show what SVGs can do, and I think we have plenty examples of that already. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very nice map of high encyclopedic value for sure but it simply lacks beauty to qualify for an FP. I cannot recognise any outstandingly interesting forms in the representation of objects or anything else artistically special that is usually desired when considering similar works.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]