Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sec2tan

Reason: It is a good example of using animation to visualize a tricky mathematical idea.
Articles this image appears in: Calculus
Creator: OSJ1961

Support as nominator OSJ1961 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm worried that this is not getting any attention; people may be unsure of its significance given the terse statements in the caption and reason. I wonder if you would be able to provide a pretty straightforward paragraph or so saying what this is actually showing, what that means to a layperson, and why you think it's particularly valuable for the article. --jjron (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axis labelling is sloppy (the x is labelled, albeit in a weird spot, the y isn't labelled at all).
Isn't it still standard to put arrowheads at the ends of the axes?
Wouldn't it make sense to include the equation/function that is being graphed? --jjron (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rerender this with antialiasing first. --Dschwen 12:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No idea what I'm looking at. Shouldn't there be an equation or something as part of the diagram? Kaldari (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The animation itself is very good. It would benefit from a graph that is not as stretched on the y-axis. There is a problem on your graph in that the x-axis is labeled to the right of the one and the y-axis is not labeled at all. Consider labeling the axis on the right and the top of the graph. Overall a very clean job that shows the concept well. victorrocha (talk) 9:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does anybody bother to read preceding comments? --jjron (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A quite good animation but does not illustrate well the concept. I'm not sure how to do it better but I think the axes are not necessary and the curve could be simpler, without inflextions-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --microchip08 ^{Find my secret page!} Talk to me! I feel lonely! 10:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]