Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gear-kegelzahnrad.svg

File:Gear-kegelzahnrad.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 21:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Gear-kegelzahnrad.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gear-kegelzahnrad.svg

156

49

165

231

2100

1235

Discontinuity at the edges of "black ring" (where it is supposed to be continued as a "silver axle")

•  Info created and uploaded by Thyes - nominated by me -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --FieldMarine (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Kooritza (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose No WoW factor, unimpressive.
• Changed to  Support per Niabot. TucsonDavid (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support That kind of illustrations which is needed for articles. Good execution und valuable. --Niabot (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per Niabot. --188.115.34.20 14:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC) signature correction --Cayambe (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose 1. Loose end of an axle is carelessly finished - the last "dark ring" on it gives an impression of not being continuosly attached to the rest. 2. Shading of "black rings" doesn't go along with the shading patern of axle itself, making them appear flatter. Masur (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) ps. [1], what explains maybe the fact that the image is not rendered properly by FF (in my case) in full size as SVG and the only software able to open it, is AI for me. Masur (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The numerous (372) validation errors of the svg file should be sorted out as pointed out by Masur. --Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Changed to neutral per Niabots explanation below. --Slaunger (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The execution is very good. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not overly impressed by the lighting colours, and the reports of validation errors disturb me. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Neutral Changing to neutral per niabot's explanation (thanks). --99of9 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment The validation errors are typical. Also many of my images (if not stripped and badly reusable with inkscape [layers lost, some effect controlls missing, etc.]) produce this errors, which aren't errors. It's just that the validator only takes plain SVG into account. Additional informations, like tags from inkscape should be ignored, since they are defined as an extension of the doctype, which is correct to do so. But the validator does not resolve them and marks them as errors, which is a problem of the validator and not of the SVG-file itself. --Niabot (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated