Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Human skull side details.svg

Image:Human skull side details.svg

Original version (left) - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LadyofHats 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor choice of label positions, which ruins unnecessarily a fine skull illustration. Alvesgaspar 12:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wsiegmund 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured

- done-LadyofHats 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what I meant. The line segments should affect the illustration as little as possible. Why put them all on the same side of the skull? The same with the other figure. Alvesgaspar 11:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - in this way the labels use half of the image(the whole image) and the skull the other half. if i place them on both sides of the image the skull will use only 1/3 from the image wide, if i also place them above and below the skull then the image size would relatively be even smaller. in my first image there were already people complaining that the diagram should be able to be readed in thumbnail size, wich normally is arround 200px ( that is why i use text so big this time). if i would apart from that force lines to be "only" straight and 45° as you sugested, then the skull ( in my opinion the central part of the image) would be no more than a dirty spot in the middle. the reason why i place the labels all on one side of the skull is because i find it aesthetical and practical. I agreed with you that the first option with the lines crossing the front part of the skull was not good and i changed that but this time i would ask you to reconsider your request, since i find your argument not convincing. -LadyofHats 13:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ inconsistent labeling: e.g. proc vs proc. vs Processus -- Lycaon 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed (on the right version)--LadyofHats 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose sorry, still opposing for naming arbitrarily chosen features at different levels of detail. (e.g. you mention the basis mandibulae but not the ramus mandibulae, you mention the foramen mentale but you ommit the foramen zygomaticofacialis, etc.) -- Lycaon 19:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ok took out foramen and added all the other names on the source you gave me. also pointed lines as in the others-LadyofHats 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jnpet 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a tough life, being a graphics artist ;-)) Lycaon 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Better now although I would prefer another legend solution. Alvesgaspar 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cluttered. Stephen.job 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]