Comment I agree it should be SVG but as long as it looks good at the review resolution, it should pass the criteria, shouldn't it? Powers22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the user above... the criteria clearly states, "Its usability in printed format is not considered." All that matters is how it looks at the review size. – flamurai01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I see it, the whole concept of the project is to reward images based primarily on their content, not technical or aesthetic quality. If the criteria were changed to increase the technical standards, the focus of the entire project would change. – flamurai00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having a file in the most suitable file format is certainly something which adds value. If we have not stated that explicitly in the guidelines today, I think we should consider adding it. And I agree SVG is the most suited format for such an illustration. However, we are reviewing if it is the best we have, thus the file format in this review is not that important. Suppose this image was promoted and later challenged in an MVR of the "same" image in svg format, i would certainly favor the SVG as it is much better suited for making adjustments and derivative work. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are there more relevant categories to place this in? It's only in Networks, and that seems pretty generic to me. It's definitely a graph, so it belongs somewhere in Graphs, but there's probably something down that hierarchy that's more appropriate. – flamurai01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The way the outlying nodes are scattered around with all the lines crossing makes the illustration very confusing. For example, there is a blue node directly between and above nodes 2 and 3 that appears to be connected to nodes 1 and 4. If this were the case, nodes 2 and 3 would be bypassed, so it would invalidate the graph (only 5 degrees of separation). Not a great illustration of the concept, so this fails criterion 3. – flamurai00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the opposers that there is room for improvement, but a VI does not have to be perfect. For me it still illustrates the subject well. It could be done better, sure, but that is also what we have MVR for. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
