Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ICBM diagram reloaded

Diagram of an ICBM with MIRVs from launch to detonation

 * Reason:Informative diagram that explains how an ICBM with MIRVs works, covering the sequence from launch to arrival and detonation over a target. High encyclopedic value.
 * Articles this image appears in:LGM-30 Minuteman, Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle
 * Creator:Original created by Fastfission, this version created by Martin23230 based on previous FPC suggestions.


 * Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 13:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous Nomination (file has been modified a fair bit since then) Noodle snacks (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral This is a fine diagram, but it seems pretty cartoonish to be a FP. That said, I don't see how it could NOT be cartoonish.  I'm willing to agree that this image has a good deal of EV.  Thus I find myself neutral on this nomination - so far.  Question: would this be better as a jpeg?  Spiral5800 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. SVG is good because it is resizable (think large posters for example). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe my concerns from the original nomination have been addressed. Other than that, unless someone with more expertise knows better, I think it illustrates the subject well. --jjron (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is a fine diagram and illustrates well the subject. Still it lacks sophistication to reach FP level. Yes, it could be a lot less cartoonish. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It can use some more effects (gradients, blurring, strokings, etc.)  Zoo Fari  18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, The atmosphere should fade into black, not grey.  Zoo Fari  18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral & Comment - In my opinion, it will be more suited to be nominated here, where I could give a support vote. - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ ΞΞΞ_         .   --  09:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I refuse to be a part of the VPIC process; from where I sit, an article and an image should be judged by the same criteria, and if an article is good enough to be a GA, then its good enough to be A, and if its good enough for an A than its good enough for FA. By contrast, VP offers images no chance for promotion to FP, and since VPs do not receive a bronze star, are not mentioned in any official avenue, and can not be on the main page the whole point of VP is null and void. Lastly, on a personal note, I consider any comment on an image I add here to the effect of "take this to VPIC" to be an insult; I add images here because I feel they have what it take to go all the way here, not someplace else. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say nominate there too, but I opposed with no further suggestion. Maybe that means anything to you...  Zoo Fari  19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Looking cartoonish isn't a big deal imo. Correctness is by far the most important thing. I'd like to see black space too ideally. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above . An odd mix of styles lacking just a bit of finesse for FP, I think. Not keen on the trajectory crossing the box on the left, for example. Detailed missile doesn't sit well with posterised land & sea, and so on. Valuable image, having said all that. --mikaultalk 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)