Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dynamite

Dynamite diagram

Original - Diagram of dynamite.
A. Sawdust (or any other type of absorbent material) soaked in nitroglycerin.
B. Protective coating surrounding the explosive material.
C. Wick (although a blasting cap is commonly used).

Reason

Satisfies all of the FP criteria. It is a vector image, so no lossless compression and can be shown at high resolutions. There are no other diagrams (that I have seen) of any dynamite. The image shows what is inside and out of dynamite. It has a free license. Definitely benefits the article dynamite.

Articles this image appears in

Dynamite

Creator

Pbroks13

Alt. 1 - Diagram of dynamite.
A. Sawdust (or any other type of absorbent material) soaked in nitroglycerin.
B. Protective coating surrounding the explosive material.
C. Blasting cap.
D. Metal strips to hold the dynamite in place.

• Support as nominator ----pbroks13^talk? 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Its an svg file, so its size is adjustable, but at the moment its about half of the 1000px size mandated for an FPC. Fix this, and I will support. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, it's now 1000x800. --pbroks13^talk? 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Clear and informative. It would be difficult to obtain such an image of real dynamite (safety issues).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You got me interested. I found and uploaded this and this, but perhaps you want them stacked up like the one above? Chick Bowen 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Abstain until the consensus is that an accurate version has been produced. An FP will come of this, eventually...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose; I like the concept, but I want the 'view inside' (which is what I'm guessing A is) to be better. Right now it just looks like a smudge on the dynamite stick; perhaps a full cutaway or a wireframe could be done to show that you're actually showing what's inside the stick. (I think.) Also, there's no label or explanation of the black band around the sticks; I figure this is the tape holding them together, but that probably needs a mention. (And, if it's tape, shouldn't it be going around the whole bundle, instead of around each one?) Or, is it just a standard color for the center of the covering? --Golbez (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question Hm... can dynamite really be ignited with a fuse? I believed that was just a common myth. Besides, there's virtually no informative value in that drawing. What's that wrapper made of? What's that strap in the middle od the sticks? Looks more like a cartoon stereotype to me. --193.227.99.5 (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't really have any enc value - the blasting caps are not shown (no, you can't ignite with just a fuse). As said above, this is basically a cartoon, much like in a Road Runner movie... ;-) Besides, often dynamite is not packed in tubes, just wrapped in waxed paper (as seen here) so that the sticks can be easily cut into smaller pieces. We don't need seven in a bunch, either... --Janke | Talk 12:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Dynamite is sometimes used in bunches, but the straps go around the bunch rather than around the individual sticks. See this image for example.[1] Also, there only needs to be one fuse. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As above - a bit too cartoony. Also the shadow is poor - a hard shadow will not fade away in a linear gradient. A soft shadow might fade away, but a hard shadow won't --Abdominator (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, reading the suggestions above, i did a bit to improve the image. I tried to make it the coating look more like paper, removed the wick with a blasting cap, made the cutaway part look less like a blotch, improved the shadow so it doesn't fade away, made only one fuse, used only three sticks, and added metal wires to hold the dynamite in place. --pbroks13^talk? 06:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose You got the blasting cap all wrong - it doesn't look like this, and it should be inside the stick... Careful research is in order to get good enc in a picture like this. --Janke | Talk 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to what's already been said, I believe there is a spelling mistake. It should be GEFAEHRLICHER, not GEFAEBRLICHER (substitute an H for any B and you're good). Unless somehow this is not German? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it should be GEFÄHRLICHER - and what's "EXPLOEA..."? Also, the paper wrapper is wound in a wrong way, see the stump photo again. Research, research... :-)--Janke | Talk 09:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• EXPLOEA... is EXPLOEAVSTOFF. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Um I think that should be EXPLOSIVSTOFF. Why are we making a picture of WWII Dynamite though? SHouldn't this represent a modern image? Like these sticks here [2] It shows the insides in the next picture. pschemp | talk 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - You're getting there. This version is much improved! You might want to work some more on the blasting cap, though. Here is an image that might be helpful. For a bundle of dynamite, they might even just stick the blasting cap in the center of the bundle, although I'm not sure on the typical method. Also modern blasting cap wires are usually thicker that the ones in your diagram (if the positive and negative wires are wrapped in one insulating sheath, otherwise it's a double wire). Keep up the work and I'll think you'll have a winner :) Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspending until a new version is made. --pbroks13^talk? 07:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn --pbroks13^talk? 08:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted ----pbroks13^talk? 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)