Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Archimollusc

Archimollusc
Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 21:15:14 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality SVG diagram, meets or exceeds all requirements for nomination
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mollusca
 * FP category for this image:Animals
 * Creator: KDS444 (Note that the "creator" username is my username on Wikimedia)


 * Support as nominator -- KDS 4444   Talk  21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: a detailed and clear illustration of anatomy. I wonder if the extremely complex shading and textures can be reduced and replaced with gradients, so as to make the file size smaller and easier for browsers to render. Also, the font size is different in various browsers (it's too big in Chrome, for example)... but that's not your fault; and as long as it displays properly in the Wikimedia generated PNG, it should be fine. Otherwise, it is quite good. dllu (t,c) 03:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have gone over the image and removed certain elements altogether to see what effect they have on the total file size. Here is a breakdown:
 * * Nephridia and atria: approx. 1,000K
 * * Digestive gland: <400K
 * * Nerve cords (all): 1,300K
 * * Gonad: 3,227K
 * * Ctenidia: 199K
 * * Pericardium: 370K
 * * Head (entire): approx. 3,000K
 * The head and the gonad therefore account for nearly half of the entire file size (13,000K) as they are. I hate to lose the details in the head (all those pores!) but let me see if I can get the gonad to drop below 1,000.  It will still be a large file, but it will be close to 10,000K.
 * I am not sure what to do about the font size— can you recommend some code that will help keep it reigned in? Let me know.  Thanks!   KDS 4444   Talk  05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not a very efficiently made svg, it looks like it was generated by rendering from 3D to svg... Certainly a high quality result though. - Zephyris Talk 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The file is now below 9,500KB down from over 13,000KB. I generated the image in Adobe Illustrator CS6 and then prepared the SVG file from there.  I am unsure how efficient Illustrator is at producing SVG files, and I grant that it may be very inefficient.  But the criteria for becoming a featured picture do not include efficiency, so I did not take this into any real consideration when constructing the image (though I have reduced its size by roughly a quarter since nomination in a retrospective effort to accommodate this).  Being eyecatching, however, IS a criterion, as is a minimum size/ dimensions.  Those requirements I worked dilligently to achieve...  Would that not make it good enough for a Support vote??  I am trying really hard here. KDS444 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A featured picture also requires a high technical standard. Two major advantages of an .svg format are the ability to scale it losslessly and edit it easily; the sheer complexity of the image and the lack of gradient shading arguably mean neither of these advantages are met, making it not of high technical standard. Having said that it is of excellent visual quality, and I am happy to give you a Weak Support. - Zephyris Talk 22:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Complexity reduced, gradient shading increased, file size now below 8 megs. I think this is the best I can do with it. KDS444 (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A screenshot of how it looks in IE10 is at http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1061/mollusc.png. As you can see, the text layout is messy, with text impinging on other text and on the lines, and very noticeably different spacings between the lines and the labels. 86.128.5.222 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I give up.  KDS 4444   Talk  23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)