Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Renal corpuscle.svg

File:Renal corpuscle.svg, featured

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2009 at 09:21:36

Whole nephron with Henle's loop

•  Info created by M.Komorniczak - uploaded by M.Komorniczak - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's a nice image, but I've one problem with it. In the image the proximal tubule is shown as a completely different entity than the distal convoluted tubule, though they are both part of the tubule system (same structure but they have different functions though). They are interconnected by the loop of Henle. The image should just either make clear that they are similar in structure (by using the same color) or show the whole of the tubule system. For myself it isn't a problem, but most people don't know a lot about the kidneys. The image is accurate, if I'm not missing something (I'm a medical student). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Info The author is also a student of medicine. I ask him to comment. I unfortunately can not refer to the substantive allegations. Albertus teolog (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Hey, I'm author of this image. I don't think so that miniature (of whole nephron) is necessary. In professional picture of Renal corpuscle have a similar approach (eg. in Netter: [1] or in [2], or [3]). This painting imitates image under a microscope and has been verified by polish MD (wikipedist Thelarch). Image is only supplement to the text, you should remember this. --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'm trying to say here is, that a non-medical professional can't understand from the image that the distal tubule is just an extension, anatomically wise, of the proximal tubule. Therefore I think, that they should be given the same color. A ordinary person should be able to understand the connection between different structures without reading the text as well. Further more, I'm not implying there is anything wrong with the image. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I add miniature, but will do it not until next day. --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Changes according to the recommendations --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose until somebody removes watermark. --Eusebius (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Done Watermark removed. --Eusebius (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Watermark /Daniel78 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Looks good, but I'll wait for that discusssion above. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks very nice. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Very nicely done. Could you just flip the miniature so that its orientation matches the main drawing? Lycaon (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Done --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Very well done --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support GerardM (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very well made! --SvonHalenbach (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 18:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support After the changes, I support. --Curnen (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 11:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)