Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orbiter main propulsion system.svg

File:Orbiter main propulsion system.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 11:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Orbiter main propulsion system.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orbiter main propulsion system.svg

•  Info created by Malyszkz - uploaded by Malyszkz - nominated by Fred the Oyster -- Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose There are many minor "errors" in this diagram in my opinion. Many parts look not like possible in real life (see annotations). This is a diagram, if it has to be FP, has to be close to perfect I think, and, no offense intended, this is far from perfect. And last, words are not well spaced, but a little too tightly placed one against the other. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with any of my notes please, and to remove them, but after a while so people can read them). --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • By the way, it should say tHrust, (The reactive force in the direction of the nozzle's exit) not trust... trust is another thing that has to do with faith :) --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) As far as I can see there are no errors, on the understanding of course that you are looking directly at the svg file rather than the rendered version. A couple of the points you raised are unfair really as if you look on the original 'official' png you will see that the illustration remains faithful to it. I can answer each point if you wish. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, no offense intended, and I never wanted to be unfair. But I have an advanced understanding of 3D graphics and can tell you for sure this file is not a good reproduction of reality in that sense (not the reproduction work, which is good, but the original work) _{(This was a mistake, I thought you had edited the first svg version, which I thought was the original file. Then I looked at NASA's file and it's ok. I still think the svg has many errors)}. I'm just saying, in my point of view, this shouldn't be a featured image because it has many logical errors - in the original file (I mean the original svg file in Commons with the typo, not the one from NASA which looks ok in 3D despite the lack of precision). No need to discuss any point. I look at the file and think: this is not among the best works in Wiki. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
        • You may or may not have a good understanding of 3D graphics, what you don't appear to have is a good understanding of illustration. The original from which this illustration is based is by NASA and it is faithful to that. An illustration is not meant to be photoreal otherwise a photo would do the job better. An illustration is supposed to simplify so as to make it clearer. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate in fact most illustrations aren't. It is interpretation of the original artwork and attempts to make that clearer which it does incredibly well. As an illustrator I understand that, you obviously don't and as such I don't believe you are in a position to properly judge this illustration's merits. Especially as you seem to want to argue with NASA's viewpoint. Bear in mind this is not my artwork but as a professional illustrator I see it for what it is, not for what you think it should be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Having gone through your points the only conclusion I can come to is that no offence was intended, but you just don't seem to have a clue about illustrative work. When you can't even recognise that the line on the top you think is a problem but is actually the rear edge of the far ceiling then I start to believe that you really aren't qualified to make the judgements you are making. perhaps you should pass on by and we'll wait for someone who does know what they are talking about. I'm just surprised you haven't passed comment about QA somewhere in the artwork. If you do wish to pass comment then I suggest that you look at NASA's artwork, then back at this artwork then pass judgement. The nominated artwork is a realisation of the original NASA artwork, nothing else. Not reality, not the image that's in your head, not what you may have seen in text books. perhaps when you can do that I will take your comments seriously. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Dear user, I can see you must have worked really hard on this. Your work on Wikimedia as an illustrator is pretty awesome, no doubt. Despite my oppose, I sincerely hope you get your FP status. You look very confident about the original artwork (I meant the first svg file, not the NASA file which is ok) and the fact that I don't have a clue, that I am not qualified, that my comments are not serious, etc: if the file is so good, my oppose should do no harm, and you'll get plenty of supports, it'll all be fine. Regards --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Twice or three times I've mentioned it now yet you still don't take it in. This is not my artwork, I am merely nominating it. The only thing I have done to it is correct the typo and anyone with a text editor could do that. Looking through your contributions I see that there isn't a single vector illustration there, this just further solidifies my opinion. I am well aware that I cannot take photographs to your standard and as such wouldn't dream of critiquing them, I just wish the opposite were true. Unfortunately you are critiquing this artwork as if it was a photo, that's not how it works I'm afraid. I am nominating this artwork because as a professional illustrator I feel I am qualified and can see the level of expertise and artistry that went into this, hopefully someone else with similar abilities and experience will be along to give a more insightful critique. Thank you for your time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Paolo that the illustrator didn't seem to get the correct 3D shape of the object he intent to represent (how could he have, starting with such a poor quality diagram?). Some parts also seem to be missing, but it's hard to tell what exactly. I can change my vote if I find a better version of the diagram before voting period ends. - Benh (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - per Paolo and the discussion above. --Claritas (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Question What does the acronym "ET" in "ORBITER/ET" expand into? "External tank?". I don't like acronyms in text in figures unless they are very widely understood (IN. is OK as an abbreviation for instance). I think they shall be either expanded to full text or eliminated unless they are crucial for the understanding. Also, is LO₂ standard notation for liquid oxygen in aeronautics? According to en:Liquid oxygen the most well known abbreviations are LOx, LOX, or Lox (although, personally, I prefer LO₂ or $\mathrm {O} _{2}(\ell )$). --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment The lower right subfigure confused me for a while. I think it could have been clearer if the LH₂ and LO₂ compartments had been enclosed by a cross-sectional view of the well known shape of the external fuel tank (I suppose the oxidizer is near the tip end?). I am also wondering if there is a special point in going from 3D in the main figure to 2D in the subfigure. The connection is not immediately clear as it is I think. --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)