Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cannon-diagram2.svg

Cannon diagram[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2018 at 11:22:27 (UTC)

**Original** – Side elevation of a typical 19th-century cannon

Reason: Quality diagram, high EV, featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Cannon, Touch hole
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry
Creator: KDS444

Support as nominator – MER-C 11:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The gunpowder appears as grey spots on the red when I open the SVG, but they don't seem to render in the preview, so the gunpowder appears rather as if it's a red liquid. Can that be resolved? TSP (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well-established fact that MediaWiki's SVG rasterizer is buggy, and the WMF don't really want to do anything about it. Firefox butchers this SVG terribly. It's best if you review this image in GIMP, Inkscape or any competent image editing program. MER-C 18:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's technically Mediawiki's fault, I'm a little loath to suggest we promote as a Wikipedia Featured Picture something that cannot actually be correctly viewed on Wikipedia. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to produce something that looked more like gunpowder using basic SVG features - I'm not sure that "red cloud with grey splotches" is that great a representation of gunpowder anyway. (I'm imagining it's meant to represent the powder being ignited, but nothing else about the picture suggests the cannon is in the process of being fired - there's no representation of powder or fire in the vent or vent field, or of a match being applied, or of any movement to the wadding or ball.) TSP (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the labels and text look disorganized (particularly when viewed at full size). We had a similar nom: [1] and it was resolved [2], leaning to oppose as is. Bammesk (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you viewing this in Firefox? I rasterized the image in GIMP and it looked fine. MER-C 19:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, in Chrome. Sidenote: same problem viewing it in GIMP. Bammesk (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great diagram. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very informative, but needs fixes per below. (Works om my Firefox v. 48.0.2 OS X). --Janke | Talk 07:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has great potential, but sloppy labels/text ruin it. Trunnion should be singular. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not sure the plural and singular for several labels is correct... Mattximus (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp and Mattximus. --The NMI User (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment. Probably could be featured, but too many small things wrong at the minute. Gunpowder representation is odd and doesn't work on Mediawiki; doesn't seem to be an explanation of why only the vent field is marked in red; vent and base ring labels almost collide unnecessarily; "Bottom of the bore" label not very near the bottom of the bore; I can't see any rimbases even though they are labelled. I'm also a bit concerned that the long section it's associated with in the article is pretty much unsourced, and seems oddly specific to a very particular design of cannon. TSP (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]