Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hubble Space Telescope (exploded)

Hubble Space Telescope (exploded)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 06:17:16 (UTC)

Reason: Good image quality, has EV
Articles in which this image appears: Hubble Space Telescope
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator: AndrewBuck

Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk to me!} 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I replaced the Bitstream Vera Sans Regular font by regular Helvetica (and Arial when the aforementioned is not available), so the SVG renders better on most computers (and not with the default serif Times). - Blieusong (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A great improvement, thanks. Julia\^talk 14:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why green? - I think you could go darker whilst maintaining sufficient contrast with the arrows, with a bit of thought. Also, could we have a source please? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose. Black illustration on white (possibly with red connector lines) or white on dark blue (blueprint colours) looks a lot better. Compare the PNG, which ends up looking more professional. The blue arrows with black heads are a particularly strange choice. Another issue is that the dotted red centre line goes off-centre by the time it reaches the lower left. For example, in the PNG source, the optical telescope assembly primary mirror and main ring has the equivalent line go through its centre. The same part is obviously askew from the centre line in the SVG. Admittedly, I don't think the centre line is kept straight in the PNG, but that doesn't justify making it straight, but not realigning the parts to match its new orientation in the SVG. Finally (?) the Optical Telescope Assembly Metering Truss draws the red line under the green illustration, including the bits that should be farther away from the viewer than the red line is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the red dotted line has one of its gaps very unfortunately spaced when it goes through the light shield. It finishes inside the drawing for the light shield, which means the Magnetic Torquer appears unconnected to it. The line needs to be seen to progress past the light shield's drawing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the red centre line is too thick. Make it a bit thinner, and space the gaps more frequently, which should also fix this issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lines connecting the Optical Telescope Assembly Equipment Section to the Support Systems Module Equipment Section are off: the right one connects with one of the corners of the OTAES, the left one is inside the curve of the OTAES, and actually extends downwards into the curve a bit. Both lines should come from the corners, as in the PNG. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

I've added what I consider a more artistic exploded view to this page. Copying some aesthetics from it would probably work well. I do apologise for the lengthy critique, but this is meant to be the best work, but there's enough sloppiness in the SVG conversion to put it below that. A little more work and it should be fine. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The overall geometry looks vaguely convincing but the standard of draughting and labelling achieves nothing like a professional standard. As a diagram, the labels are not really comprehensible unless (presumably) you already know how the thing works, and don't appear to cover any of the terms used in the article. You can't tell how the parts might fit together or what they do, even for example which end points at the distant object. ProfDEH (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]