Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Determinants of Gastric Acid Secretion.png

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Determinants of Gastric Acid Secretion

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2011 at 11:55:27 (UTC)

Diagram depicting the major determinants of gastric acid secretion, with inclusion of drug targets for peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
Edit with paths replaced by web-safe fonts (thanks, I guess we worked on it at the same time. instead of using webfonts I just converted my fonts to paths. I appreciate your help --Vanwa71 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reason
This image complements the other available image regarding gastric acid secretion in that it includes the pharmacological targets.
Articles in which this image appears
Gastric acid
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator
Adam L. VanWert, Pharm.D., Ph.D.

*Weak oppose It is a well made educational diagram, but as an image, I feel it's not eye catching and aesthetic enough to promote to FP status. Maybe you could break the image down so it's a bit less busy? Regardless, please please PLEASE continue to create images like this for WP - even if they're not FP material! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

  • Oppose (and strongly too). I’ve made the point here before and I’ll make it again with regard to to this nomination. Check out how this graphic is used in Gastric acid. That graphic does not convey usable information at the placed size of 350 pixels in the article. I just tested an experiment at 500 pixels and it still wasn’t usable; which is to say, it was undecipherable and conveyed precious little usable information. One must first click on the graphic and (at least on a Mac) click on the link to see the image using the full width of the window. I’ve created plenty of graphics and I take care to make them thoroughly usable in the size as placed in the article. IMO, not only is this nom undeserving of being considered as exemplary work that should be featured on the Main Page for a day, it really should be revised so it is usable in the article in its placed size. If it can’t be made to work in—say—500 pixels of thumb width, then it is too complex and needs to be simplified (like the problem-solving flowchart) or broken up into multiple graphics. Greg L (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal. Thanks for the comments. I realize that the image is full of information, and may seem overwhelming, but I believe simplifying it would be an in justice to many observers(e.g., physiology students, pharmacy students, etc.) In my opinion there is nothing wrong with requiring viewers to click on the image in order to see the details. This is the most thorough image available that combines acid secretion physiology and pharmacology (and that includes well established texts). My students always give very positive feedback on this image, as it is invaluable for helping them put everything together. It may not be easily interpreted by every audience, but that's not the intention. Again, thanks for this opportunity. Vanwa71 (talk)
  • The issue, Dr. VanWert, isn’t whether the graphic is instructional; it clearly is. My point is that to be fairly regarded as an exemplary showcase of the art of graphic-making and implementation on Wikipedia (worthy of being considered a Featured Picture), the reader shouldn’t have to click the graphic to begin getting value from it. For instance, the graph showing the stability of the International Prototype Kilogram is one such graphic that is fully usable by looking at it as placed in the article. No, that one isn’t an FP candidate, but it illustrates the principle of usability. Yours isn’t the first FP nomination that had to be clicked on to even begin fathoming what was in it. Greg L (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Is it possible to just change the image size so that it spans the page? Like a panorama or some such? 2. It's a great diagram. 3. I do wonder if it is appropriate for the article. Perhaps writing an article on production of gastric acid or protein digestion (if a better choice does not exist)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 06:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on gastric acid, and that is exactly what the diagram is about. The purpose of gastric acid is partly to enhance protein digestion, so I don't believe that should be a separate article at all. I'm sure I can make the image larger, but not sure how well that would be received. I still see nothing wrong with clicking on it. There is a very extensive figure legend once you click on it, so how exactly does the fact that it must be clicked on reduce its value? I don't want to dominate the page with a large picture. --Vanwa71 (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I myself used this image while learning GI physiology and pharmacology. It was extremely helpful! I disagree with those who have said the image is too busy; it’s comprehensive. That’s what makes it a valuable educational tool. ) Tkhockeygal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • I suppose a vote is a vote. But your opinion and reasoning might have more influence on others if you had not created an account and made this vote your one and only contribution to Wikipedia. It’s called being a single-purpose account, which means a certain thing on Wikipedia. And, yes, I agree (again) with your stated reasoning that the graphic is educational. That’s a separate matter as to whether teeny tiny little graphic elements amount to an outstanding, exemplary work. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to .SVG but not sure how to remove .png from the heading without making a new discussion. Vanwa71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support provided there isn't some factual error with the diagram. Some things are inherently complicated and don't fit within 350x350 or even 500x500. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I greatly appreciate your statement. The information supporting this diagram can be found in major physiology and pharmacology texts (e.g., Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics). Many texts have helpful images, but after looking at many of them, I felt that none of them were good enough for combining pharmacology and physiology. Yes, some things are extremely complicated, and I encourage the viewer to focus on particular regions of the diagram before attempting to understand it as a whole. Vanwa71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support.I don't think the images is busy at all. Clicking on it does not bother me, either. I think you need to see it large in order to appreciate it. Great work Dr. VanWert! 71.173.6.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I'm a bit confused. While the file is an SVG, I'm not sure it's an SVG proper. It's just a PNG saved as an SVG, isn't it? Makeemlighter (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. This is not an SVG vector image. It is just an embedded PNG in an SVG file. You need to trace the original image to vector format for proper SVG conversion aka. vectorization. Now it is technically just a 1/3 larger base64 encoded PNG. --hydrox (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The image still has some embedded raster components, but moving to right direction with vectorisation of fonts etc. --hydrox (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do we have a policy regarding single-purpose editors and single-purpose I.P.s whose one and only contribution to Wikipedia is to vote on a particular picture here? Do their votes count? This sort of thing could even lead to a room-full of students—anxious to curry favor with a college instructor—coming here to game the system and complement the instructor responsible for this graphic. Greg L (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." It's at the top of this page! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
D’oH! Thanks. Greg L (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this one could be awkward to close. J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the last supports was my student, but is no longer my student, and the other was never my student. I do not know what else needs to be done with the image. I believe its resolution is more than adequate. Yes I took the .png image and converted it to .svg. That's all I know how to do at this point. Please advise. Ultimately, I put a lot of work into the image, paying particular attention to its accuracy. If it never gets voted in then so be it. All I know is that I'm done contributing to Wikipedia at this point. Vanwa71 (talk)
  • FYI: I downloaded Inkscape to convert to .svg because its free. Can I use the program to make it true .svg? Vanwa71 (talk)
  • Thanks for your persistence,because now I understand what vectorization is, and its awesome! I figured out how to do it on Inkscape, uploading soon. Vanwa71 (talk)
  • Well I'm having trouble on Inkscape making it true vector without seriously ruining the colors and resolution. I'm in way over my head. Please help.Vanwa71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hang in there, man. I have no idea how to help you, but have experienced similar feelings on this sort of thing.TCO (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought you vectorized it before.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note (from Greg L): I made a page-flow edit so the text flows like this at Gastric acid. I see that User:Vanwa71 (Dr. VanWert) increased this graphic to 700 pixels but left the thumb with right-placement, which forces text to the left of it. I like that general concept (making the graphic actually usable as placed in the article). However, the trouble with that (shown HERE) is it leaves text to the left of the graphic crowded beyond all comprehension for readers with low-resolution monitors (1280 and below).

Webmasters nowadays optimize page layout assuming a minimum monitor size of 1024 pixels; below that, horizontal scroll bars will appear on your browser window and you have to scroll left & right to see all the content. For an example of this, see MSNBC.com. Shrink the window until the horizontal scroll bar appears. That occurs at about 1012 pixels. By centering the graphic and forcing text below it with the {{-}} template, we can even enlarge the graphic a bit more and ensure no text is crowded. I’ll noodle now about changing my vote since I can now concentrate on its EV (encyclopedic value) and its quality.

I am much inclined to change to “support” since Wikipedia desperately needs contributions from experts in their fields (rather than the wet-behind-the-ears novices we usually get). Most Ph.D.s I’ve encountered (many) while researching articles are totally baffled at how I am willing to A) devote time to Wikipedia without attribution, and B) put up with the frustration of less-knowledgeable 8th graders who can revert what you write. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • That didn’t take long for noodling since something immediately jumped out at me. I could conditionally support this graphic. I think it is absolutely imperative that the text below it (not in the caption) take the reader by the hand and guide the reader through the graphic step-by-step—complete with numbered steps. New paragraphs beginning with the # pound sign will automatically number paragraphs in the manner customary on Wikipedia. Though the graphic is informative, it is complex and technical and Wikipedia is directed to a general-interest readership. This material can greatly benefit from a simple re-write of the verbiage below it to make the graphic more accessible to a general-interest readership interested in learning more about this subject. Greg L (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: It's a great detailed graphic. My issue was the integration with the article (why I wanted an article on gastric acid production). If the nominator will edit the text below so that it actually goes through the process and explains the process, than I would support. Right now, that discussion does not even refer to the non-pariteal cells, so the reader has a "huh" factor going on when moving from image to text. I would certainly expect that inline text in a bio or medicine text would go into more detail of the process. I'm not just copying GregL, it's just a common sense response. If you don't change the text, than the diagram is overkill and too complicated in regards to the article. I think doing a subpage on gastric acid production or regulation might be the way to go. Because you go into way more detail on this aspect. Also because it will be a lot more technical than the rest of that article. That said, I could be OK with a longish section as well as long as it explains the process and the diagram. I also want to motivate the nom to prevail and share his frustration with teh wiki, and have a (non-medical) technical background.TCO (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, I'm gunna change my vote to SUPPORT!, maybe largely due to the creators passion, and the extraordinary EV of the image. Keep it up! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well… darn! I feel all stupid now because apparently Aaadddaaammm completely understands the regulation of gastric acid and sees EV in the graphic unsupported by any improvements in the current text. I’m a medical researcher (engineer, not a physician) and just spent a month in a medical trial on animals using the SmartPill system, in which little 13 mm-diameter radio transmitters are swallowed and which transmits gastric pH, temperature, and pressure to a receiver. Actually, the SmartPills transmit the data from stem to stern. We went through some two dozen pills and I analyzed the data for every one. I was keenly focused on intragastric pressures so pH was more of an assistive tool to help discern when the pill transited the pyloric sphincter. I nevertheless noticed the pH went down below 1.0 in the fasted condition in some of the animals.

      And here we are, at a general-interest online encyclopedia, and without some step-by-step guidance, I’m finding the graphic to be too complex to understand the interrelationships and dependencies of each numbered step. Interestingly, 20 feet behind me on the shelf as I type this is some simulated gastric acid I mixed up for material testing. It is 0.1 molar HCl (pH 1.0) and 0.2% NaCl. Sure wish I was smart enough to understand what’s going on in the graphic… Greg L (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All the words are path right now. They should be converted to web-safe fonts. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added an edit which takes care of the fonts. It looks better at 2000px but thumbs poorly. The original image was poorly vectorized, I think. I'll fiddle with it some more to see if I can fix it. Even if it's not perfect, at least it cuts the file size down substantially. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter what, this whole exercise was worth it just to learn about SVG. Now I feel like becoming a graphics artist. I have indeed been considering the fact that the article was written by someone else, and will thus necessarily not blend seamlessly with my image. My caption is pretty thorough, but I realize that being buried even one layer below the main page may be too deep. Therefore, I am going to seriously consider these suggestions over the next day or so, and adapt accordingly. I will most likely leave it on the page and revise that section of the text. It is already informative, but I will fill in any gaps, and attempt to hold the reader's hand through the image. Go svg! Oh btw, I'm going to correct all that messy text on the image, as some of it was gummied up in translation. It will be crisp ASAP. Thanks again. Adam (--Vanwa71 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Good job man, keep after it!TCO (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're awesome. Just thought you should know that. NauticaShades 17:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've fixed the fonts, and made some detail edits. Please look on the Gastric acid Wikipedia page to see the final image. For some reason, on the page here the thumbnail image has large numbers all over it on my monitor. On the main page I don't see any issues at all. Please check that out before commenting on the new image. Thanks for helping with the text, but I had already finished working on it when I saw your edit. I think it's basically near perfect. Next is to consider the placement on Wikipedia. Thanks for saying I'm awesome. I'm generally a fairly determined person. Thanks everyone for your help. --Vanwa71 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it! Man my persistence is tiring. I wised up and chose to convert all fonts to outlines in order to preserve my exact preferred style. Boy was that a good move, if I say so myself. --Vanwa71 (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something wonderful has happened. Really exploiting this trial version of Adobe Illustrator. --Vanwa71 (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you intent on tackling a rewrite of the text that follows the picture and caption so this complex subject is clearly explained to a general-interest readership? Greg L (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I do plan on doing that. The semester is starting tomorrow, so I won't be able to work on it as soon as I would like to, but It's definitely on my list. --Vanwa71 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry to sound like a hardass, but I think it really needs that before it can be voted on as an FP. People are looking for beautiful, well-done images. But they also want some strong illustrative value. As is, that thing is just way too complicated and does not fit with the as-written article. If you wrote an article (or rewrote the current article, whatever makes sense) to show number by number how the process works, then that would make the image meaningful. I know you have been busting your butt on the format and all (which I have no clue on), but I think it needs to be part of an article that really uses it, or else it really doesn't even belong and should get pulled from the gastric acid article. I would say the exact same thing were I viewing a medicine textbook or the like. Or chemical engineerin, or mechE. I don't want you to lose heart, and I do want to squeeze article work out of you too. But I don't see this thing passing until the article fits the image.TCO (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Understood. May the votes fall where they fall. I'm going to get this done as soon as I can. If I had your perspective I might have similar feelings. I might have a more technical section, and a section for the general readership. --Vanwa71 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with User:TCO. The EV of this graphic is questionable in the Gastric acid article (not to mention being a Featured Picture) if it is not followed by exceedingly well crafted verbiage explaining what it means. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, which states that “A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field.” This graphic—standing by itself without excellent hand-holding to step the reader through it—is simply not accessible to a general-interest readership.

              Thank you, Dr. VanWert, for your expert contribution; I wish it would have received a better reception here by the community. As I wrote above, Wikipedia has a dearth of contributions from true experts in their respective fields. As I’ve discovered from intensely researched articles I was working on and corresponded with the original Ph.D. researchers who published their papers, trying to capture their thoughts and accurately paraphrase it into plain-speak accessible to a general-interest readership is no small feat. Greg L (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

              • I would just do a "subpage" and host the image on there and then go into detail. There are some comments on wiki that we can have different versions of articles, some more technical than others. Also, I just think people will excuse more technical detail in a subpage. And it's just the easy way instead of worrying about integrating into that other article. Also, even for an expert technical audience presenting an image of a process that complicated and then not discussing it is not sound proper educational methodolgy. People benefit from multiple forms of cognition. So even if I create a wonderful image of the inside of a clock, I need discussion of how the catchement and all that sort of stuff works. Same with a nuclear power plant. And even for very qualified audiences.TCO (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think a subpage might work. I've never created a page let alone a subpage, so I might need some advice. I just don't want to break any rules. --Vanwa71 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, I think the most logical and fuss-free way to approach this would be for you to use your Vanwa71 user page as a sandbox. There, you can build and revise to your heart’s content without other editors second-guessing you in real-time. When you think you’ve got prose that is ready for prime time that steps the reader through that graphic and it is A) actually accessible to a general-interest readership, and B) maintains scientific rigor, I would suggest going to the Gastric acid talk page and leaving a post there. Or you can bookmark this nom page and contact me, TCO, or someone else who was active in this discussion. There are little niggling details like putting ‘category’ tags that you shouldn’t have to worry about; there are plenty of other editors here who can sweat those details. I think this approach gives us more flexibility because we can sit back and decide whether your explanatory text has a sufficiently ‘plain-speak’ nature to it that it can go into the current Gastric acid article or should be forked to a more advanced sub-page. In the mean time, I suggest that you withdraw this nomination and nominate it again when the graphic and accompanying explanatory text are in a state that truly adds value to a general-interest encyclopedia. To withdraw this nom, just make a post here stating as much. Best of luck… Greg L (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help myself and worked on the lead in that article a bit. The whole article is a bluelinked mess. I bet it would be easier to understand even reading a completely technical source. Seems like ZERO effort was made to really explain to even a general science educated person, what is really going on. TCO (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --Vanwa71 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Determinants_of_Gastric_Acid_Secretion.png&oldid=1138497485"