Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Csg tree

Constructive solid geometry tree

 * Reason:An excellent demonstration of CSG
 * Articles this image appears in:Constructive solid geometry
 * Creator:commons:User:Zottie
 * Nominator: Richard W.M. Jones


 * Support &mdash; Richard W.M. Jones 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fails resolution guidelines. Should probably be SVG.  Needs explanation of the logical symbols for most viewers.  Not too likely to draw people in.  Otherwise quite a good example of CSG. &mdash;Dgiest c 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it should be SVG. The conversion would be difficult and inaccurate: how could we draw accurate shadows in SVG for example? POV-ray traced images, if they come with source code, have almost all the advantages of SVG. The question is: how to make the source file available? For small source files (such as this one?), it is possible to include them in the image page. For larger source files it is more difficult. --Bernard 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Resolution is sufficient since the image is simple. I would prefer to have all three cylinders at the same level, being the children of the same node, unless there is a reason for the current choice. Otherwise it seems just a bit too simple. Make the source code available if you can. --Bernard 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The cylinders are primitives, and the operations are (arguably) binary, so I don't think the cylinders should all be at the same level. On the subject of source code, which other people have mentioned, I have tried to take this up with the original author of the image.  I agree that it would be a much improved nomination if we had source code. Richard W.M. Jones 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the union operator in POV-ray can have an arbitrary number of children objects, that's why I made the remark.--Bernard 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I think this needs much more explanation, at least on the image page if not in the image itself.  I also think the various objects should all be the same size, to make it clearer what is happening, I imagine this change would make the picture reach the resolution requirements. Terri G 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like stated above I really don't know what I'm looking at. It needs way better of an explanation in the caption. Also as stated previously it doesn't meet the resolution requirements. 13:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose very confusing, images should help readers know what the article is trying to explain. This in my mind doesn't also why is it in PNG format? &mdash; Arjun 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't meet size requirements (800x709px). -- Tewy  21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides size, there are other problems. The union/intersect/neutral (?) symbols aren't explained anywhere, the image isn't in SVG (and should be very large if in PNG), and the diagram is too simple for featured pictures. -- Tewy  22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have no clue what it is or what it's trying to teach. --Iriseyes 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I looked at it, went "Huh?", looked a bit closer and understood. That's enc in action. The only problem is with the circles in the back of the top object. They're a bit crummy due to low resolution. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Only because it doesn't meet the size requirements for a user made image that could easily be re-uploaded in a higher resolution. It would also be nice if it were SVG. It illustrates the article really well. I was able to get a good idea of what Constructive solid geometry is without even looking at the article. The symbols are good in keeping it language neutral. I've added a key in the caption for the article and the article has pictures explaining the operations. FYI, the symbols left to right are intersection, difference, and union. Will support if the size issue is resolved. --Aqua 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It might also help if the symbols were put into a circle. Especially the intersection is not very obvious. ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A light blue or yellow circle around the symbols would help it stand out. Care needs to be taken that people don't confuse it as part of the symbol. --Aqua 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Would support if the size issue is resolved (note that I would consider the POV-ray source being posted satisfactory on this count, regardless of the size of the PNG), and there are circles around the symbols as Trialsanderrors suggested.  I don't think there is anything confusing about this image, and I am not sure how people are failing to see the sequence of construction being illustrated here.  Even if one isn't familiar with the (widely used) symbols, the construction is clear to the point that it should be possible to deduce what they mean. Redquark 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Could be a vector. Lack of general interest. Mazin07C₪T 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)