Weak oppose Vote changed. --Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I agree it is a very nice studio shot of Apatite (and Calcite). Looking through the category there are very many images and it is also clear that the visual appearance varies greatly from sample to sample. There are also different variants of apatite, which further complicates matters. Therefore I am very much in doubt as to how the most best and most representative image is to be found. My second thought was that, OK, since it is used on so many Wikipedias (and I checked a few, where it is used as lead image), it must be because some domain experts within the realm of apatite have picked this particular image for a specific reason. However, then I noticed that the photo was only created less than two weeks ago, and I began to look at the page histories. For the ones I checked, the creator had simply replaced an existing lead image, e.g., File:Apatite crystals.jpg without any comments in the edit summary. I checked the discussion pages on en and de, and there was no sign that a replacement had been discussed or agreed upon (nobody has reverted either, but that may be due to low edit traffic). The previous image on en and de, File:Apatite crystals.jpg only showed the mineral, whereas the nominated image shows the mineral together with another mineral, calcite, which is almost as prominent in the image. Whereas I do not mind that a subject is put in context by showing it interplaying with other subjects, I am a little concerned that the calcite is so prominent in the image that an observer could be in doubt which part of the image actually illustrates the scope. The annotations help in resolving this, but anyway... So at this stage not convinced and a little suspicious about the creators objective with replacing the lead image in all those articles without any discussion. I am listening though, if there are good arguments...--Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The multiplicity of forms of Apatite is specific to this species (see the etymology of the name).
I am pleased to take care of the iconography of mineralogy on all wikis (I have trouble with many languages I do not know) because the illustrations are in most cases appalling. The previous image showed two pieces of crystals off matrix, that is proposed is Dual ended and 10 times larger.
Able to show the crystal on matrix is extremely important for science (identification of the deposit at first glance, the status of mineral deposit, etc ...) the argument of the matrix is not admissible.
This piece is among the best known for this mineral.
And if we try ,together, to raise the level?
--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am almost convinced, especially about the imprtance of showing the mineral on a matrix. Do you happen to have a source specifying that this piece is among the best known for this mineral? I agree with your objective in trying, together, to raise the level. I also acknowledge that you are a domain expert and I have no professional expertise within this realm. That is why I am willing to listen to good arguments. --Slaunger (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very telling to see that we can discuss between us. I am suffering from a disease I'm a collector of minerals but especially ... dinosaur. This piece of Apatite come from the « Ecole des Mines de Paris » in which I traded there for… 25 years. I want to get what's best in earth sciences on WK. But as private collectors are very reserved, I began to seek the museums. This month we will sign a Memorandum between « Wikimedia France » and the Museum of Toulouse for photographing the collection of prehistory of this museum ; is the richest in the world but who are not exposed. If I as errors, it's because of the enthusiasm, our adventure is particularly exciting...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
