Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/IJN Yamato scheme

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 15:45:32 (UTC)

Reason

A big, annotated scheme of the Japanese WWII sea god in his final configuration. Has a scale.

Articles in which this image appears

Japanese battleship Yamato, Yamato class battleship

FP category for this image

Diagrams

Creator

Alexpl

• Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I would say it looks good, but don't diagrams like this have a legend? Nergaal (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legend is visible when you click on the description page at Commons with the cursor on image (for some reason Wikipedia doesn't currently support the annotation feature). Twilightchill t 18:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can turn it on in your Preferences under Gadgets, there was some resistance to making it on by default though. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very high quality image. The one hundred and sixty-two 25mm anti-aircraft guns are intense! Of course, the version with annotations is better but even as is, this picture is pretty good.Purpy Pupple (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality image with lots of EV Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support The scale box is exactly the same size as the long line of boxes, it's just a optical illusion that makes it look bigger. Showing my ignorance here, but is a png meant to be so pixelated? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Depends how it was drawn... This was clearly drawn by single pixel pushing so the pixelation is understandable, although not ideal. - Zephyris _Talk 20:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking question What are the units for the waterline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaadddaaammm (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: great diagram, high EV, no quality issues. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: should an FP include a signature, if this can easily be removed? --Avenue (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's not a concern, but can contact the creator on behalf of that if needed. Twilightchill t 05:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done so at Commons:User talk:Alexpl. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious oppose, there should not be a signature. We do not allow photographers to add watermarks, why should we allow illustrators to add signatures? This very much is a concern. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. If signature is removed. Kaldari (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn -- mcshadypl ^TC 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the edges make it look like it was done on the cheap theyre not straight lines, maybe it'd be better as an SVG --Thanks, Hadseys 21:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This should really be an SVG. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support if an SVG can be made. I have no real concern with regards to the signature—I would support whether it was there or not, but I think it adds a nice touch. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 10:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is obvious that SVG would be much better. However, given the sheer amount of detail in the picture, an SVG would take a long time to load in most web browsers; furthermore, it would require a phenomenal amount of work -- I think that a disproportionate amount of work is not necessary to qualify this picture as a Featured Picture inasmuch as it is already quite good to begin with. Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with signature, in a png. It's a beautiful image, and we need to encourage artists to come and draw for us. Arguing over semantics just drives them away, depriving us of future encyclopedic images similar to this one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just lowers standards. I'm not saying it isn't good, but it is undeniable that it would be better in svg and without the signature. We actually have standard boilerplate templates saying "please remove the watermark/in-image credit". That's not how we do things here; credits should be on the image page, not in the image. Again, would you be ok with us promoting photographs with watermarks? J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image has been updated (the signature is out). Twilightchill t 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Watermarks, no, but I could definitely live with signatures for Commons artists... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why? What's the difference? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In any case, as the images would be more useful without the signatures, and we have permission to modify them, they would (rightfully) be removed over time anyways... J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- what is the thin blue line running the length of the ship just below the waterline on the bottom diagram? Looks like a mistake to me. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex has removed it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and the creator raised an interesting point why this image is png and not svg (check his commons talkpage). Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Enormous EV, detailed, interesting, well done, and lovely additional touches (like the rust staining below the anchor). Some jagged edges but they are far too minor to really detract. Accept that there are limitations to SVG (per Purpy Pupple and the creator) and am fine with making a PNG exception for this. Maedin\^talk 11:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Yamato1945.png --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]