Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Comparison optical telescope primary mirrors.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2024 at 13:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Engineering
Info created and uploaded by DmitTrix and Ahecht (last version), nominated by Yann
Support High quality SVG graphics, detailed description, used in many places. -- Yann (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)- Support Very informative and high quality --Wilfredor (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment Many of the dates on this image would need to be updated before promotion. Both of the dates I changed in my last update, for example, need to be pushed.I went through and updated the dates for future telescopes, but we probably need some extra sets of eyes on the various translations (for example, I didn't know how to translate 2030s, so that date is only in the English text). We also likely need to add text to Arecebo to say (1963–2020) in the other languages (which is non-trivial for non-speakers of the various languages, and which needs manual checking for each language to make sure the new text fits). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the file and fixed all issues I could recognize (I'm speaking English, Russian, and Hebrew, and with some help from translation tools could make fairly educated guesses for other Slavic langs there; for Chinese, I totally relied on Google Translate, and the changes I made were very minor). It would be great if someone could re-generate text2path stuff after Arecibo’s text was updated. Also, I see that the generated PNGs show some issues for James Webb and Gaia – looks like the subscripts there are breaking something. DmitTrix (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I'm torn, because I love the comparisons of scale, but I don't like the crowding or the overlapping text, so I wonder whether it might be better as a table, though I recognize the problem of FAST and the radio telescope in Arecibo being so much bigger than the others. This is definitely a good VI, but is the usefulness sufficient for it to be featured, or might we decline to feature it, for aesthetic reasons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not possible to show that much information in reduced space in another way. While it would be possible to create a table, the information would be lost, and we couldn't see the relative size, so we would miss the point of this file. Yann (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but does that make this an FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think it does for the amount of information provided and the very good execution. It was also just updated. Yann (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
