Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Radian

Radian[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2013 at 16:43:16 (UTC)

Reason: This excellent animated illustration was created by Lucas V. Barbosa, and was uploaded to Commons back in March. It clearly and simply describes the definition of a radian and its relation to the circle in an easy to understand manner, and has been the lead image in the Radian article for over two months. I feel that it meets the FPC criteria.
Articles in which this image appears: Radian
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
Creator: Lucas V. Barbosa

Support as nominator -- $V o$ BEDD 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Very cool, but why do designers always choose the most difficult-to-see colors? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The EV in this image is tremendous! It explains radians much better than any calculus professor I've ever had. How I wish I had seen this earlier. Colors are fine to me. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 01:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yet another cool animation by LucasVB. It is straightforward, visually clear, decent resolution, and loads quickly. But I agree with Keraunoscopia that yellow against white is a poor colour choice and would prefer it if it was changed to something else. Interestingly there is a tau version. dllu (t,c) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the colors are really an issue, they can be changed, though that would have to wait until saturday. I used yellow since it contrasts and stands out strongly with the red and blue. The yellow looks fine to me, so maybe it's a monitor calibration issue? Either way, here's a few alternative colors to the yellow. See if you guys like any of them. — LucasVB | Talk 02:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal monitor is calibrated correctly so I can see the yellow stuff with no problem; but bearing in mind that probably the majority of Wikipedia browsers use poorly calibrated TN monitors, it is best to have more contrast. I like the dark green version most, but am concerned that it may be hard for colour blind people to discern red and green. Orange and cyan are not bad either. dllu (t,c) 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) <-- sort of, I never know when to use this I shouldn't have said oppose, I should've asked a question or made a comment. These kinds of graphics are awesome and like Wingtipvortex said, I never saw anything explain 3.1415 so simply (radian too; I'm not the smartest when it comes to this stuff). I can't thank you enough for the color options, that in itself is awesome. I like all options except yellow or orange. And I'm grateful for Dllu's comment; it's not a calibration issue, it's not a color-blindness issue, it's just the contrast of yellow against a white background on bright LED screens that simply blind me anyway (when editing my own photographs I often take "looking" breaks). I also wonder, since yellow doesn't "exist" on computer screens if using another color wouldn't have more impact anyway, for whatever reasons I can't even begin to fathom. My favorites are Cyan and Violet followed by Dark Green. Absolute support otherwise. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say if the original is not acceptable, I'd prefer the orange one, followed by dark green, then bright green. Cyan and violet are not different enough from the other colors to provide adequate contrast. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Dark green has been mentioned the most. I'm all for that one too. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm rather fond of it as well. I'll change it as soon as I can. Thank you all for the feedback! :) — LucasVB | Talk 06:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, as promised. — LucasVB | Talk 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – this vote extends not only to the original, but also to any alternative color choice made by LucasVB in response to our comments here. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a very nice illustration. BNK(talk) 04:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support non-conditional, but a darker color as discussed above would increase the visual reception of the graphic. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple, elegant, and gorgeous. Jujutacular (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent illustration: simple and elegant. I would also go for a darker color. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the new, dark green version. I also added some tiny pauses in some places that were bothering me, and smoothed the bending animation. I hope this version pleases everyone. :) — LucasVB | Talk 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewatched it and it's perfect. Awesome job! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Given the simarities between this animation and the tau version that dllu mentioned (which is currently used in Turn (geometry)), would there be any merit in promoting both, say, as part of a set? $V o$ BEDD 10:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. We've had thousands of years of pi, and only a few years of tau-advocacy. The supposed merits of tau are nowhere near as clear-cut as, say, the case for h-bar versus h in physics. SOME formulas are marginally simpler when expressed using tau, while OTHER formulas are simpler using pi. Textbooks universally use pi. Tau is never used in serious scientific or mathematical publications. Tau is recognized by only a tiny fraction of our target audience. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the pi-tau debate isn't really the issue, is it? Both animations are of the same high standard, and both add EV to Wikipedia articles; why couldn't they both be featured in a set? The Flat Earth model is never used in serious scientific publications either, but that doesn't mean we can't feature a picture about it.

V o

BEDD 17:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say that making references to tau would subtract EV from an article... — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, the said article is actually the article on tau. That said, I don't think it is necessary to promote the tau version of this image. dllu (t,c) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent illustration of a mathematical concept. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Very nice. Kaldari (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Circle radians.gif --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]