Human skull side simplified

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2015 at 05:02:13 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality SVG file, satisfies Featured Picture resolution criteria as it can be scaled to "infinite" with zero reduction in quality. Though its sister image is a Featured Picture at Commons, I consulted with WP:MED member Soupvector who suggested in his medical expert opinion that this one would be better, instead.

Articles in which this image appears

Temple (anatomy), Craniofacial abnormality

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator – — Cirt (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -would enhance any article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - but can we get it on the main page in time for Halloween? Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've already got a skull scheduled for Halloween. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support assuming the skull diagram is accurate. There have previously been some (mostly minor) accuracy issues with medical SVGs. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492:Please read, above, where I noted before bringing this one here I checked it for accuracy with WP:MED member Soupvector, who said it was fine, DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I did read the above. I am still qualifying my support, as there have been (minor) problems in the past. I believe the full skeleton image was one the MED people took issue with. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okey dokey Crisco 1492, I'll try to get a Second_opinion#Medicine from another physician for you. :) — Cirt (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (I commented on this previously on my Talk page) I have some professional familiarity with the topic, and have compared this diagram to some reference sources and have not noticed any errors. I note the concern raised by Chris Woodrich, but I think this diagram avoids the errors of distorted proportion that plagued the skeleton diagram. — soupvector (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Soupvector, your professional medical opinion is most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I don't see any technical problems with this image, although thickness of the suture lines feels a bit off. (It's hard to visualise the orbit, given that the grey shading is much subtler than the edges of the lacrimal bone.) Also, all the labels are in adjective forms (omitting the word bone), except for Maxilla and Mandible, which are nouns. Maxillary [bone] would be more consistent, but the mandible isn't referred to as the "mandibular bone", so the disparity can't be completely avoided. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These images are from the same angle and better in pretty much every way.

A simple retouch and these could be sent to FI as a full set.

• Oppose While accurate, it is ugly. We have better images, and even some from the same angle, such as the set:

CFCF 💌 📧 23:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Sobotta figures you link are quite cluttered and include archaic spellings (e.g. "lachrymal"). Moreover, the spellings cannot be corrected readily since they are not SVG (whereas the image under discussion is). Overall, I'd say that they serve different audiences, but the image above is clearer, more current, and probably more useful to WP's broader audience. If the Sobotta figures could be updated and re-rendered as SVG to facilitate maintenance, they might become more valuable for some purposes (e.e. if interest in the sutures etc outweighs the problem of clutter). — soupvector (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Accuracy always helps. --Tremonist (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comparable to netter [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Doc James, hopefully now Crisco 1492 will consider this an adequate Second_opinion#Medicine from another physician. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support high-quality anatomical image. Glad to see the english-language version from the old "os temporalis" version.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Human skull side simplified (bones).svg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]