Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jack plug

Jack plug[edit]

Reason: It's an accurate depictation, eye pleasing, and a great 3D representation.
Articles this image appears in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_plug
Creator: User:Peo
Nominator: Cyrus Jones

Support — Cyrus Jones 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree the 3D representation is quite good. But the oversized tags spoil the illustration. Alvesgaspar 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. -Midnight Rider 01:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 -- Made numbers smaller, per Alvesgaspar & Midnight Rider. --TotoBaggins 03:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support a middle ground. I think the original numbers are too large, but the edited ones are far too small to be useful in an article. JHMM13 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edit The lables should be visable in thumb nail. -Fcb981 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Edit 2 has them in between. --TotoBaggins 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original / Weak Support Edit 2 / Oppose Edit 1 - the large numbers are nice because you can make full use of the image from the thumbnail. Debivort 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definately doesn't need to be that high-resolution. It can easily convey all possible information about the subject (labels of a headphone jack) without taking up my entire screen --⁪froth^T 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edits — The labels are not too big, they are perfect. Most images like this are utterly useless in thumbnail size, simply because you cannot read the labels (hence my opposition to the edits). This allows you to see the numbering perfectly in either thumbnail or full size. If you want a nice compromise, try a size between edit 2 and the original. And ⁪froth, did you just oppose this image because its resolution is too high? You've got to be kidding me. ♠ SG →Talk 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I did. We like high resolution in photos and stuff because it brings a lot of detail, but when there's just no more detail possible, it's a waste --⁪froth^T 17:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But of course I'm not opposing purely on the basis of it being too big; I don't think it's worthy of an FP (just a headphone jack with some numbers on it) and I was pointing out an additional flaw --⁪froth^T 17:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean, but there IS more detail at higher resolutions. Remember, these images are free to use; that means someone might eventually need a high resolution version of this image. If a small version were used, they'd have to blow it up, meaning loss of detail. Besides, at its current dimensions, it just barely passes size requirements. ♠ SG →Talk 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it just me or do the edits look like the image has been tilted somehow and the colors have changed? I'm trying to analyze it from all sides here, but I still can't shake that sense. I would support the original picture with slightly smaller numbers. I think the "compromise" edit 2 was really more of giving an inch when a half mile would have done just fine. JHMM13 08:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tips of the plugs look "disembodied", floating in space, due to the (probably optically correct) reflections. Fix this, and I'll support. Version 2 looks best to me - maybe a little larger labels? Too big on original... --Janke | Talk 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as per Janke said, or add a solid link from stem to the tip NVO 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment These illustrations are supposed to be the best of the best (aesthetics included). Then, why do the position and orientation of those segments and labels seem like random to me? They should be as discrete as possible, but IMO they are not and spoil the illustration. I would try not putting any tag in between the plugs - Alvesgaspar 12:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with a complete lack of understanding towards froth's oppose. I think the 3D is okay, but, I think the reflection detracts from clearness and clarity of the diagram. It seems to me that this image would work better as an SVG... I think scalability is more important than 3D in this case and I think you could make something look just as good. gren グレン 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Legibility is good.Circeus 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Legibility is good. I really don't understand what's wrong with larger labels, in particular because they in no way interfere with the subject. There are many vision-impaired folks out there. It's easy for them to increase the text size, but they can't do anything about labels in the pictures. Let's write an encyclopedia for everyone Madman 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - images should work as a thumb, edits make the labels too small. --Peta 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per above. Noclip 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per above, thumbbing makes the subsequent edits useless. Recury 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Whichever one gets consensus is fine with me. Very useful! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. If we're going to thumbnail this into articles, I'd like people with bad vision to be able to read the tags. They're not that much of a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Per those points made before me. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Jack plug.png --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]