Reason: Very good animation, meets all the criteria, and contributes greatly to the articles.
Articles this image appears in: Self-similarity Scale invariance
Creator: Cuddlyable3

Response by Creator I thank everyone who has commented on this animation. So much has been observed about other ways that this fractal object might be shown that I feel we could have a fruitful discussion about it on my Talk page. You are all cordially invited. :) Cuddlyable3 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator — Temperal^xy 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very weak oppose On my display, the animation is a bit unsmooth, and I would love to see an antialiased versoin, as you get some roughly looking transitions during the scaling because it is un aliased. Debivort 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice idea, poor realization. The animation is smooth enough but too small and aliased. Alvesgaspar 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above; not Wikipedia's best work. --Tewy 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter how much information is added to the description page, the image is still rough and on the small side, even for an animation. I just can't picture this appearing on the main page. And is it my computer, or does the animation speed up slightly at each loop? --Tewy 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above.--Here T oHelp 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Personally, I have a lot less stringent size requirements than most here, but this is just too small. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard size requirement doesn't apply to animations... Debivort 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not very interesting...no "WOW" factor. Encyclopedic, but not FP status. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The image has technical issues, like jerky frame rate or something that makes it not flow as smooth as I would like. It is a bit small, and not that crisp.-Andrew c 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I have no idea what that thing is, but I do know that it is uninteresting and unimpressive! Chickitychina`1`1 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support a version with the above-mentioned technical issues resolved (aliasing, size, and also the rate of the animation does not seem to me to be constant.) Also, it could be cropped as there is nothing at all in the bottom half of the frame. Spebudmak 17:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral You should ask someone who's experienced with POV-Ray to redo this image.. it could be made rather interesting. You can find someone who contributes POV-Ray images frequently by checking uploaders over at the POV-Ray category at the Wikimedia Commons. -- drumguy8800 C T 06:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]