Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Collage of sand samples

Sand particles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2020 at 22:06:20 (UTC)

Original – Collage of sand particles, one square centimeter each, from Mongolia, Estonia, Hawaii, and mainland U.S.

Reason

High quality depiction of sand particles.

Articles in which this image appears

Sedimentary rock, and Sand

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology

Creator

Siim

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – OK for a textbook, I guess, but I don't see it fulfilling Criterion 3. – Sca (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I disagree; I think it's a fine image, of its type. But it has very limited EV for its use in sedimentary rock (since most of it is not sedimentary rock) and is not used anywhere else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My comment also was meant to express limited EV – and IMO limited visual interest. Technically it may be "fine" as you say, but not of general interest. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I second David Eppstein's comment. Very nice picture that we should be pleased to have, but very limited EV in its current usage. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• I added the image to article Sand, by replacing a less informative image by the same photographer. It is a lead image and has a descriptive caption. Pinging participants for a second look @Sca, David Eppstein, and J Milburn:. Bammesk (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think the varied colors and textures make this quite eye-catching, it's technically of high quality, and I think that by replacing another similar image by the same photographer, the new usage in sand arguably meets the exception for the 7-day waiting period in criterion 5. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Not of general interest. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Armbrust: out of curiosity, when you close these discussions, do you weigh !votes that have absolutely no basis in the FP criteria that same as everything else? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• It works the same way as on Commons. More than five supports and 2/3 of the votes in support of promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• The reason I ask is there's a big difference in the way the rules are written. Specifically, ours says "five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor". It goes on to say what consensus is generally regarded to be in numeric terms, but links to WP:CONSENSUS, which isn't about numbers, so it could also mean something similar to most other vote-like processes on Wikipedia, where strength of arguments matters (e.g. RfA, where it's largely determined by numbers, but when it's close it comes down to strength of arguments, with particular scrutiny on opposition arguments). Perhaps too much of a shift from the way things have long been done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• In the lead of WP:FPC it says "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; ". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• I know. I'm asking because of the "generally regarded" rather than "defined". I would be surprised to see consensus on Wikipedia defined by an absolute numeric majority regardless of the content. I brought it up because the use of "consensus" is different here. If there are no exceptions to the two-third majority, to bring it in line with every other usage of that term, maybe it should be worded more similarly to Commons? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support; I agree with David Eppstein (again). I strongly disagree with Sca; not only do I not really buy the whole "general interest" thing (is this part of the criteria?), but I think it's really interesting. It's not really clear to me how we can "settle" this disagreement, which I think is part of the reason that it's not part of the criteria. Not very scientific, but I showed it to my partner, and she said something to the effect of "yeah, it's really interesting - I love those zoomed in pictures. It's very Wikipedia - that's just what you want from an encyclopedia". Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

To each his/her own. I find it only slightly more interesting than the pattern in the linoleum on my bathroom floor. But beauty is in the eye.
– Sca (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Beauty's a different thing again - and very explicitly not part of the FP criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as long as it stays in Sand - I think this image is a good illustration of the differences between Commons FPC and this FPC. The EV is that is shows that sand is not a homogenous concept and that there are different grades. MER-C 17:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Largely agree with MER-C, but I wouldn't rule out this sort of "poster" for Commons FPC either. Certainly more at home here, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Promoted File:00065 sand collage.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)