Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dynamite-2

Dynamite

Reason: Previous nomination was Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dynamite. I believe that all concerns have been addressed.
Articles this image appears in: Dynamite
Creator: Pbroks13

Support as nominator ----pbroks13^talk? 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral useful illustration for educational purpose, but I honestly think that the image is visually not appealing. Sorry.--Caspian blue 03:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sticks are not round at the bottom end of the picture, however the shadows are. This seems wrong to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for shadow, I notice that it is placed on a wrong place. The light comes from the right side, so the shadow should be on the left? The reel's place is awkward (too close to the dynamite).--Caspian blue 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore the light on the sticks is quite soft, yet the shadow is hard, this is also wrong. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Significantly improved over last version. Still needs work on the shadow. Also, wire reel should be moved further to the left, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quite a lot better than the previous versions but per above still has some serious issues. Cat-five - talk 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does this really have the necessary enc for a FP? There are questionable statements in the caption, too: Why metal strips, when ordinary sticky tape is good enough? Why positive and negative wires - a blasting cap is not polarized. Plus, the visual problems mentioned by others. Furthermore, bunching together three sticks like this is rather improbable - explosives are usually inserted into drilled holes (e.g. in rock), one after the other - see 2nd picture in dynamite article. This still looks like it's out of a Road Runner cartoon. --Janke | Talk 09:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose If there are going to be shadows, then make it consistent. The dynamites have shadows on their left side and on the floor to the right. The thing the metal strips are coiled on doesn't have a shadow, nor does the wire itself. Also, the gradients are annoying and the bright colors make it look to "cartoony". —Black and White 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both tape and metal can be used , as seen here, they used metal strips. But if it will make things better, i'll change it to black tape. Also, it is not uncommon to bundle dynamite together, as seen in the image before, here, and here. I think the shadow should be fixed now, and so should the placement of the wire reel. Oh, and I changed the caption for D to simply just wire. --pbroks13^talk? 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust those photos too much - the first photo is obviously a staged (maybe even fake?) picture, with severe typos in the German spelling! (From that, I can also see it was the basis for your first attempt! ;-) The bands in the photo are not metal, looks more like the type of silvery ribbon you wrap around x-mas presents! Why is there English writing (DANGER) on the box when the dynamite is (supposedly) German? The second pic looks like a movie prop (i.e. a fake with a too short, improper "firecracker" fuse), the third is more genuine, but seems to be a (staged) museum exhibit, not dynamite in actual use. I'm afraid your research has led you a bit astray (good try, though). Sorry to say, this subject may not be the right choice for a FP candidate. (If you wonder why I'm so picky, and purport to know all this; I once made a movie about blasting and its dangers for a mining equipment company...) --Janke | Talk 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, trust me, I think that being picky in FPC is important, because shouldn't FP be the best of the best? --pbroks13^talk? 00:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The perspective of the dynamite sticks and the spool seem mismatched to me. It looks like the top of the spool is angled forward. Wronkiew (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I figured out what was bothering me about the perspective of the spool and the shadow of the stick. I put together two illustrations of the problems. Image:Dynamite-5 spool perspective problems.png shows that the cylinder of wrapped wire is moved back on the spool cap. The two red lines should not be separate unless the bottom cap is not flat. The shading suggests that it is flat. For the stick, see Image:Dynamite-5 stick perspective problems.png. The vanishing point for the stick is different from the shadow. This should only be the case if the back of the stick is raised up off the surface it is casting a shadow on. I should mention that for all my nitpicking, the illustration is much better than I could have done. Wronkiew (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you're absolutely right. I think I fixed the shadowing problem. Also, I fixed the spool, although I dont think the lines should match, as the first wire wrap is elevated. --pbroks13^talk? 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt 1 I can't find anything else in the diagram to complain about. Wronkiew (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an alternative. It contains only one stick of dynamite, and there is no tape. --pbroks13^talk? 00:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 - ~~Move the "B" marker so it's not up against the spool and move the hole in the top of the spool up a pixel or two so the perspective is right and I'll support it.~~ Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good representation. LOL I like how each edit has had fewer and fewer sticks of dynamite. :) Thanks for putting up with us FPC reviewers ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - I'd like to see an edit with -3 sticks of dynamite. Seriously though, per Kaldari if you also soften the shadows, hard shadows and softly lit objects looks wrong. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I softened the shadow and adjusted the spool. How's that? --pbroks13^talk? 07:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Soft light for what i mean by soft shadows, the shadow currently has a clearly defined edge when it should fade from white to grey at the edges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs)
  - Hah, sorry. How's that? --pbroks13^talk? 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Its an improvement Noodle snacks (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The perspective looks a bit wrong and, as per Noodle's comments, the shadow is also too sharp. Luca (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The shadow in the both illustration look still not natural. Why don't you try with a whatever cylinder-like object and light? --Caspian blue 23:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys are a bit obsessive with your shadow critiques. Personally, I liked the original shadow just fine :) Kaldari (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info The shadows have been edited again. --pbroks13^talk? 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns seem addressed in the alternate, please comment on it. MER-C 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask: Oppose Reiterating: Does this really have the necessary enc for a FP? . . . This still looks like it's out of a Road Runner cartoon. (Almost...) --Janke | Talk 09:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Any suggestions for improvement? Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. All this shows is a symbolic, rather than accurate "tube", with some "stuff" in it, and a nondescript detonator and a spool of wire. Can't see the enc in that... --Janke | Talk 22:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 07:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]