Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Electromagnetic spectrum

Electromagnetic spectrum

 * Reason:Ultra-enc value + svg + high quality (it's a pity the article isn't in the same shape)
 * Proposed caption:The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses all electromagnetic radiation - ranging from radio waves through microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays in order of increasing frequency.
 * Articles this image appears in:Electromagnetic spectrum
 * Creator:commons:User:Inductiveload


 * Support as nominator MER-C 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. We should have an excellent chart of the electromagnetic spectrum, but I'm not sure this one is quite excellent.  I have some nitpicks; for example, the minus signs in negative exponents look like hyphens, and are hard to see (cf. "-2" with "&minus;2").  It should be easy to line up the numbers on the different scales (wavelength, frequency, temperature) but they're too far apart and are interrupted by the little pictures.  This xkcd version, while not entirely encyclopedic, is actually easier to use for converting frequency and wavelength.  The idea of showing objects with the same physical size as the wavelength makes some sense, but it might lead the reader to think that radiation of that wavelength interacts strongly with objects of that size; this isn't really the case.  Molecules have a lot of transitions in the infrared, and most atomic transitions are in the UV. In the atmospheric transmission bar, there are gray blocks that aren't explained (probably because there's a complex band structure in some of them).  I've come across published charts that have been more useful to me (with features like a plot of atmospheric transmittivity, common radio bands like X band denoted, etc.), but maybe something that information-dense would be too much for someone new to the subject.  -- Coneslayer 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it difficult to line up the numbers, but the scales aren't precise as they spectrum is not linear or logarithmic here - it's been stretched and squashed to give about equal weight to each "band". I am going to make a dedicated frequency-wavelength scale that will be precise to complement this picture. Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Do the humans have to be naked? Little unnecessary if you ask me. NyyDave 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. --84.90.46.116 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, they're from the Pioneer plaque. -- Coneslayer 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think they're pretty standard for representing humans when it comes to size\scale, sadly I can't think of any particular example now :\ --84.90.46.116 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the actual Pioneer plaques - they were drawn to show humans' size and shape in the first place. :D Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said xD --84.90.46.116 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * NyyDave, I hope you are kidding.--Svetovid 16:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it just seems like we don't need to represent ourselves that naturally. Whatever.NyyDave 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Coneslayer issues - another problem is that the units look like divisors: "Wavelength / m" looks like wavelength per meter - should be "Wavelength (m)". de Bivort 16:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they ARE divisors. Dividing by the units is the accepted way to label a graph, as you are ploting numbers, not quantities (how do you draw a Hertz on a graph?). Therfore, Freq. / Hz is a dimensionless quantity. If you write f(Hz), it looks like multiplication or a function of Hz, neither of which makes sense. Also, am I allowed to vote here? Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that out, I was wondering about it myself - It seemed correct, but I just wasn't sure ;) Also, I'm pretty certain that you can vote here, yeah - as far as I know only IP's don't have suffrage. --84.90.46.116 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed to (units) convetion, because ths seems to cause endless confusion, and consensus at Commons was to use this way, as although the / units way is more correct, this is more accessible to the layman. Since this is not a highly accurate image anyway, and is designed for use in teaching the basics to people who may not know the / units convention, I think this is the best option. --Inductiveload 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Very cluttered. If it can be simplified, it would make for a much more powerful image. Sometimes little pictures like this are helpful, but in this case, instead of thinking about the science, I'm distracted thinking about what the little pictures mean. The color temperature bar shows discrete steps, but in reality it is a continuum, and why are X-rays and gamma rays shown as pink when they are colorless? I've seen scores of these kinds of diagrams, and while it's great to have this one, I've seen many better. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wondered about a transmission plot that but I couldn't find a transmission plot that goes from radio to gamma, and anyway, it's horrible cluttered and spiky. If people want one they can go to the relevant article and get a much more detailed one. It is more of an indication of the general transmission in that area. No scale on this picture is designed to be very precise - it's more of a concise overveiw of the spectrum than a very accurate plot. I'm working on a continous black body scale. Also, I am going to make a dedicated frequency-wavelength scale that will be precise. That may be a few days though.Inductiveload 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On seconds thoughts, I'm NOT going to make one as there is one in the article already. --Inductiveload 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer this edit with a continuous colour scale?(right)Inductiveload 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved this edit to the top below the original, and labeled it Edit1, as is customary on FPC. --jjron 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support If I'm allowed. Inductiveload 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure you're allowed. --jjron 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Is there something that I'm not seeing, or does this image fall far short of the size requirements? --Malachirality 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics). If you open it in the right software you can resize it to any size you want without loss of quality. Thus the size stated on the image page doesn't have the same meaning as for a jpg, png, gif, etc. --jjron 07:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gives impression that radio waves etc. are red and X-rays are fuchsia. I'm really not sure about the little pictures (butterfly, atom, etc) - I'm not sure they help or distract. Also, how can frequency be measured in meters? Shouldn't that be Hz or something (I'm talking about the edit, the original is different)? Matt Deres 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 09:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)