Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atomic chess capture

Atomic chess capture
Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2016  at 17:42:00 (UTC)
 * Reason:The atomic chess variant revolves around an unusual mechanic (the "explosion" upon capturing a piece). This graphic/animation illustrates a simple example of the mechanic (and thus the game). It's a QI and VI over at Commons. I think it's strong on encyclopedic value, so I guess we'll see if the technical side is sufficient (e.g. it's low resolution, but intentionally so, given its purpose and that it's a diagram rather than a photo).
 * Articles in which this image appears:Atomic chess
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
 * Creator:Rhododendrites


 * Support as nominator – &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support  lNeverCry   21:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The last part of this animation makes no sense. It just shows 4 pieces simultaneously disappearing from the board. Huh? Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ? I don't understand your objection. The last part is the whole point -- the way it's different from regular chess. It's not chess. It's a chess variant. When you take a piece, the capturing piece, captured piece, and all adjacent nonpawns are removed. Perhaps I should've summarized the game beyond what that which is in the caption for the purpose of FPC? New at this, so don't know how much context is necessary. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now. I didn't understand that this was a different kind of chess. I thought it was some kind of chess strategy. Changing to Support. Kaldari (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured :) Thanks for the follow-up. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Jobas (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Yann (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  – the size is small. Why not larger? say double, like these, . The size can always be scaled down in article use, but enlarging from a small original is a bad idea. Bammesk (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry; this feels like an extremely generic chess animation. I wonder whether a clearer illustration might somehow demonstrate the relationship of the rook and the bishop to the captured pawn, and perhaps the even greater threat that the knight initially poses. I confess that I'm not certain what a FP-level chess animation would look like, but I don't think this is it. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. IMO, does not fulfill FP criteria #3: "Is among Wikipedia's best work". --Janke | Talk 17:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (and others) - I've uploaded a new version of this image which is more or less identical but higher resolution (will probably requiring purging the cache). While I was at it, I created another version (as this one is VI/QI, I didn't want to modify it beyond the resolution): File:Atomic capture on g7.gif. The idea was to add something along the lines of what J Milburn suggested, demonstrating the relationship of the rook and the bishop to the captured pawn. Frankly, while it technically does that, the radiation symbol may be a little silly and I don't know that the way I've done it actually does make it clearer. It adds the red highlights to show the affected squares, but still requires explanation via text (i.e. what the red squares mean, why two pieces were affected but two weren't -- and if no red squares on those, then why the explosion only seemed to affect the square in front of the capture, etc.). So my inclination at this point is still to go with this one (albeit a higher resolution version), but I'd appreciate your thoughts. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck my oppose. About the radiation symbol: I think a knight symbol replacing it is simpler (just an opinion). I am neutral on the nomination. Bammesk (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites, Josh has a point and I think the red zone is an improvement, but I find the radiation symbol distracting/complicated. I uploaded a low res suggestion:, what do you think? Bammesk (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't know if I prefer the red highlights prior to the capture rather than after or at the same time, but yeah the radiation symbol kind of sticks out. Before making any other changes, I'd like to see how this nomination continues to play out. I think that as soon as we get away from basic chess diagram content, opinions will vary considerably, and if there's a consensus not to promote this one I'd like to have as many opinions as possible before nominating something else. I do appreciate taking the time to make this revision, btw. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I wish blue line was changed, and to be smaller. Otherwise, more Carlsen play than Karyakin. --PetarM (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per J Milburn. Animations such as these are illustrative and help the reader understand the subject matter, but I'm not quite convinced that they're FP-worthy. It's the same issue with maps. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just wanted to say that my oppose stands. I am not sure what a featured-quality chess diagram would look like, but I'm not convinced that this is it. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The nomination has 66% support, which is enough for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)