Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Bicycle diagram

I'm amazed this got a support vote, there are so many things wrong with it technically, and graphically it's extremely ugly. I can only assume it's supported by people with no specialist knowledge, either of bicycle design or of logical graphics. For what it's worth. ProfDEH (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the technical problems? The SVG seems perfectly well laid to me. Sure there are some small things I'd tweak, but these have to be kept in perspective. I do not think it is ugly and I am sure if commenters felt that they would not have supported. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the actual file, my point was about the correctness of the bicycle terminology and the way it's drawn and labelled. I think if you're just looking at it as an example of a diagram it looks all right, but if you know about bicycles you'll see omissions and illogical things in the way the labels are grouped. Not a true technical drawing, quite detailed but I think traced from a photograph, which would explain non-concentric wheel rims and other minor anomalies. Mostly already covered in the comments - I'm not saying it isn't useful, but not as good as it could have been.ProfDEH (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)