Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eutrophication

Very good diagram to illustrate Eutrophication, an excellent trace from Lycaon

• Nominate and support. - antilived ^{T | C | G} 05:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support edit 1 - Visually appealing, except for the big blodge of uniform brown sea floor - I'm also not sure to what I should be most paying attention - or what eutrophication is, as the word does not appear in the image. These things could be addressed and it would have my enthusiastic support. Debivort 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As a benchmark re SVG format: On my G4 PowerBook (1.67GHz 2gB RAM), hardwired ethernet, Firefox 1.5.08, it took 21 seconds of browser paralyzed rendering for the full size version to appear. By comparison, less than 2 seconds for its image page to load, and 6 unparalyzed seconds to load the 3k x 2x full size Manarola nomination below Debivort 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it takes a while to open. I am not the author of this svg, maybe he or she can help optimize the rendering time? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 06:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, takes a whooping 3 Seconds to render on my Athlon 64 (2.8GHz) in Konqueror using KSVG. If anything should be optimized, then its the Firefox renderer. --Dschwen 07:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha indeed! It took 3 seconds for me as well, but in Internet Explorer. Amazing. Debivort 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it took considerable time to open it in Inkscape is well. It is not THAT complex and shouldn't really make my Inkscape slow down to a crawl. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my Inkscape (0.44.1 on Linux) stays snappy as ever, no signs of a slowdown. I'm sure we could go on forever, bottom line is we obviously don't have an objective measure for the SVG rendering time :-) --Dschwen 08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 1 second on an Intel Core Duo 2.16ghz in firefox. It doesn't matter people, in 5 years firefox will be far improved and so will people's computers. --froth^{T C} 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 5 years, 7% of us will have died and be turning into dust. I'm not sure why this timescale is relevant to the discussion, but I think I get your point :-) Debivort 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Too decorated, like a children's illustration (the sun, the lettering, the animals,...). Would prefer a more sober and schematic drawing. Also, as Debivort says, the concept of eutrophication (the excessive accumulation of nutrients in the water) is not clarified in the picture (the same happens with the article...).Alvesgaspar 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The text-shadow is a bit irritating at small sizes, but the sun is fine, I see no problem in making the illustration appealing. After all, kids are using WP as well... --Dschwen 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, amazing job, and all FP don't have to be betifull blue sky, Wikipedia have also many shemes, and we can be proud of this one. Yug (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Graphics OK, but the dropshadowed text is not. --Janke | Talk 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Wonderful diagram! Sharkface217 01:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't tell me what eutrophication is... Pstuart84 Talk 10:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support that's the job of the article psturat --froth^{T C} 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, the diagram must take some of the responsiblity for explaining the concept. However, there are technical errors also - look at the fecal pellets. If the circle is the zoomed area in the sea then the fecal pellets should be entirely contained within that circle, not deposited in the sky. Pstuart84 Talk 16:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Keen as I am to get more good quality illustrations of scientific topics, I think the shadowed text needs to go, the fecal pellets need to be inside the circle and the word eutrophication needs to be in there somewhere. Perhaps a change to the caption under the dead crab would be sufficient, ie mentioning the oxygen depletion (ie eutrophication) requires the sea life to escape or die? Also a change of arrow when pointing to features compared to inputs and outputs of the system would be good to prevent confusion. Terri G 11:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have tried to address all concerns in the new edit. Criticism welcome. Lycaon 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Eutrophication is an extreme situation, when the excess of organic matter causes oxygen depletion. That normally happens in still waters (swamps, for instance), not in open sea. That is not the situation illustrated in the image, where the waves suggest we are in the ocean and the accumulation of nutrients is being compensated by fresh water from rain and rivers, and the solution of new oxygen is being helped by turbulent mixing caused by wind and waves Alvesgaspar 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looking at the diagram makes me think it's discussing O2 transport, not N/P/K transport. And why is there the "effect unquantized" comment on it? --Dgies 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that all criticism about the scientific content—and some of it is certainly justified—should be directed at the orginal makers (EPA, USDA, or whatever american institution that made the original drawing). I'm willing (and probable able ) to implement lots of changes. But just saying: this is bad and that is not good, etc. is not very helpful. Please add some constructive comments on how to improve the drawing. Lycaon 09:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to be more helpful but I don't know how. To illustrate eutrophication I would rather use a diagram of a swamp, with little depth, still water, lots of organic matter and maybe some discharges of polluted water. Alvesgaspar 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Support The first one is to bright, but the second has some shading making better than the first one.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im how and ready for you loving