Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kreutz Sungrazers family tree

Kreutz Sungrazers family tree

I happened to be re-reading the article I wrote ages ago about the Kreutz Sungrazers, some of the most spectacular comets in history, and I was struck by how nice I thought my family tree diagram looked and how clearly it shows how many of the brightest comets of the last two centuries came to exist. So, I thought I'd nominate the diagram here and see if others agree.

Nominate and support. - Worldtraveller 15:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would consider supporting a high resolution PNG version of even better SVG, but I'm afraid a small GIF with aliased lines doesn't appeal. It's also not very obvious what it means. chowells 15:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the graphic presentation is substantially improved. --Janke | Talk 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should contain more information. Also, the layout leaves a lot to be desired. ~MDD4696 17:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What further information should it contain? And how could the layout be improved? Worldtraveller 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there's a lot of possibilities, but if I were to do it I would start by putting time on the X axis, changing the background to be light and the foreground/text to be dark, increasing the size of the image, and improving the antialiasing. It could be styled as a comet/spaced themed timeline somehow, but that might end up being too "cutesy". As far as information, adding relevant images would be neat, and adding notable events from around the same time would give more of an idea of time frame. I'm not really familiar with the subject matter, but I'm sure there is a fair amount of information that could be incorporated. ~MDD 46 96 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a useful image, but nowhere near feature quality.--ragesoss 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of quality and layout. In a picture that consists practically only of lines, you might at least use anti-aliased ones, line up their starting and ending points, etc... Useful, but shouldn't be an FP. I don't want to sound harsh, but what made you think this might be a featured picture? Are we missing something? (honest question) Mstroeck 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you are! It illustrates something which would be almost impossible to describe in words, 'in such a way as to add significantly to that article' in my opinion. Its value to the article it illustrates is substantial, and it's unique to Wikipedia. It shows you when the comets arrived, which ones split up to give birth to which others, how the Kreutz families and sub-families arose, etc - packed with info really.Worldtraveller 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I agree it's useful. But please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_visible (especially the "Drawings and diagrams"-section) or your own two featured pictures. The quality is not comparable at all. Mstroeck 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above. Mikeo 21:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for image quality. | Spaully 00:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Mstroeck Calderwood 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Illustrates the family tree just fine, but not special enough for FP - Adrian Pingstone 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. enochlau (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]