Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/comparison of ship sizes

Comparison of the largest ships

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2011 at 03:25:48 (UTC)

Reason: This is a very illustrative and educational diagram of some of the largest ships of different kinds. It has high EV and even shows the waterline.
Articles in which this image appears: List of world's longest ships, Seawise Giant, Emma Mærsk
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator: Notafish, derivative work by Maxrossomachin

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could we perhaps have underneath the images of each of the ships, what type of ships they are; oil tanker, cargo ship(?), passenger vessel and military? I think that would make it more informative --Thanks, Hadseys 22:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the very same thing. JBarta (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested at the lab. I don't have Corel Draw or a similar SVG editor anymore. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added the ship type to the image. (Type name according to our List of world's longest ships.) JBarta (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks for taking my comments onboard. I think it looks a lot better now --Thanks, Hadseys 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have that big enough to be legible at least in a main page sized thumbnail, if not article-sized? Samsara (FA • FP) 22:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would look bad with that text large as well. It's not necessary that everything be visible/legible at thumbnail size. That's why it's a thumbnail. I think it's fine as it is. JBarta (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "fine" is the last description that applies in its current state. The adage has always been that FPs should stand on their own at main page size, and in that sense, this is definitely below par. There is no possible reason other than laziness that one kind of information should be privileged over the other. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness? I think you're way off base. In a technical image (of which this is a simple one), it's perfectly reasonable to scale the text size to the image... NOT blow up all the text in a clumsy attempt to make everything always legible at thumbnail size. I would argue that's just plain stupid and would make for some silly looking images. The thumbnail version gives a great overview of the image. Viewing in full size offers more detail. And that would be the smart way to do it in my opinion. Laziness or privileged information has nothing to do with it. And while "adages" are all warm and fuzzy in an Uncle Remus sort of way, I would prefer you point to actual FP criteria written in cold hard text so everyone can see it and no one has to guess what the current adages are. JBarta (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the question, which was: why is one kind of information judged worthy of a larger font size than the other? Samsara (FA • FP) 00:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to repeat what I said above... it has more to do with appearance than one bit of information being more worthy than another. The text is the size it is because it looks best that way. And you're missing an important point... the text is secondary. The main purpose of the image is the visual representation of differing ship sizes. If you removed all text except the names of the ships it would still convey 98% of the information it is meant to convey. JBarta (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Knock Nevis doesn't even seem to be included in the main list. J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is another name for Seawise Giant. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be mentioned in the caption that Knock Nevis/Seawise Giant/Jahre Viking was scrapped in 2010. Other than that, a very nice and informative diagram. Otto Jula (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that somewhere along the line the photo caption changed from "the largest" to "some of the largest"... that's good and hopefully will carry into the article. The QE2 is case in point... it's not the largest passenger ship by length but it is by weight. I found that a bit confusing at first. JBarta (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I changed it to bring it closer to the article wording. I had missed the "some". Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Informative, well put together, very encyclopedic and adds interest to any article its in. Plus it's in SVG format so it can be easily changed, updated, translated, etc. JBarta (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above I can see why it is informative, but I can't see it as part of wikipedia's best work, and not worthy of FP in my opinion. JFitch (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page in the How to Comment section it says All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. Just to stir the pot a little, what could be addressed to make you support the image? JBarta (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the colours of the ships don't seem to mean anything in particular, I suggest that the same two colours (one consistently for above waterline, one consistently for below waterline) be used for all ships. Of the listed combinations, red-bottom and grey-top seems sensible, although blue-bottom (not currently used) might add to ease of understanding. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the seeking of uniformity, I would suggest the varied colors do not really disrupt the readers' understanding by any significant amount. Actually, I think the colors might even add to the visual appeal... they also emphasize that these are a series of different classes of ship. JBarta (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I was looking for what the colours mean, and it's frustrating to go looking for information that is not there/relevant, so I believe this simple fix should be executed. If the picture is found to have no appeal with uniform colours, then it also had none with random colours. What we're trying to convey is information, not fuzzy sensations at meaningless multicoloration. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Yes, it is useful and has obvious ev. But I see nothing extraordinary justying the status. In my opinion, it lacks the sophistication of most of our featured illustrations. By the way, the distance scale is awfull! Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "distance scale"? JBarta (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think s/he means the scale at the bottom. A grid would theoretically be better, but it would make the picture less pleasing to look at, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I understand the purpose of the different colors on individual ships, but why do different ships have different colors? Spencer^T♦C 04:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my question was resolved. Weak Oppose nonetheless. Though it has okay enc. and looks much cleaner than it did at the start, I don't feel that this is one of the "top" images on Wikipedia.
Updated image in response to some of the comments. Colors are consistent, foot conversion added to lengths, scale bar toned down a little and "Seawise Giant" added to biggest ship to (hopefully) reduce confusion. In addition, all the text bits are now actual text so they can be more easily edited/translated. This image won't achieve FP status, but maybe these changes made it a better image. JBarta (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]