Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mode Dial

Mode Dial

 * Reason:Detailed and accurate SVG illustration of the article Mode dial.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mode dial
 * Creator:Althepal


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Althepal 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I like it, it does a valuable job of illustrating the article where a photo might be too brand-specific. Clean, informative and direct. I'm on the brink of support but it's not really doing anything more than a basic good job. If you could animate it, it would be fantastic. mikaultalk 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but I really am not very familiar with SVG animation. I don't think rotating the dial would really contribute much more to the article, anyway. (It is clear from the graphic as it is that it should rotate.) I'm glad you like the illustration! Althepal 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Perfectly illustrative. Jellocube27 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Original vector illustrations get a boost in my personal ratings system. Wikipedia doesn't allow SVG animation, so that's moot.  Downgrading to GIF just for animation doesn't make much sense.  The only thing I can think of that might be nice would be to have the labels of what each thing is in the image itself, but it might be too cluttered. --TotoBaggins 00:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I like it. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-06-14 02:06Z
 * Oppose. It's just not... interesting. 8thstar 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support I was reflexively inclined to agree with 8thstar, and even as I don't know that I'd be disposed to think of this as amongst Wikipedia's best work, I must say that it is otherwise entirely consistent with the FPC and surely serves an encyclopedically illustrative purpose quite well. As to rotation, I actually think rotation would be unnecessarily distracting here, and I think any accompanying caption will properly convey that the dial in actuality serves to rotate. Joe 04:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It looks smooth and nice. Maddie was here 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support: The caption needs to tell that this is found on a camera! We know it, but do all wiki users? --Janke | Talk 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. And yes, let's say that this is found on a camera.--HereToHelp 14:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, how's the caption now? Althepal 17:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great; thank you.--HereToHelp 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've got a couple of problems with this being an FP. The first is that while it's an excellent illustration of a mode dial, I don't know if there is any actual dial that looks just like that. For example, the dial on my Cybershot is no more than half similar to the illustration. If it illustrates an actual camera's mode dial (and it very well might), it should be specified so as not to create the impression that mode dials are standardized. Second, while it is nicely drawn, I can't say that it actually increases my knowledge of what a mode dial is; I agree that adding captions for the symbols would clutter the pic, but without them the picture doesn't enhance understanding.  Third, and I realize this is completely subjective, I just don't get the feeling that this picture represents the "best possible" illustration.  Matt Deres 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, different designers will have different mode dials. As the caption says, this is, more or less, a pretty generic camera dial, and as you said, it is even partially similar to the dial on your Cybershot. I did not model this after a specific camera, but rather looked at multiple dials on cameras from different designers and created a generic one (not modeled after any one of them) with elements (design, color, modes, illustrations) that they generally share in common. As far as the settings go, while they will vary from camera to camera, the ones in this graphic are among the most common. But thanks, and I updated the caption per your suggestions. Regarding your second concern, the caption does the job of a key within the illustration. About the third, well, what can you do? ;) Althepal 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The illustration is technically well executed. I don't like how the dial is simply floating in space, because it makes the minus sign off to the left seem a little odd. Otherwise, good work with the illustration and caption.-Andrew c 23:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The notch is supposed to be shorter in height than the dial, and the light is supposed to come from the upper-left, which is why the shadows look like that. It's not supposed to look like it is floating, but just rather have a bigger shadow than the notch. Thank you for your support. Althepal 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice bit of graphic design. Looks very realistic, while being simple enough to clearly indicate the content. Adam Cuerden talk 23:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is a good effort, but I don't think it rises to the level of our best work.  I find the disembodied dial rather disconcerting in the way that a close-up of an actual dial wouldn't be.  I also think the shadow actually increases that feeling, especially given that there is no texture to the dial itself.  I could also imagine improving this by adding a partial illustration of a camera underneath to give it context.  Dragons flight 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, I think it's very well done. gren グレン 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support This mode dial really only looks like the mode dial that you'd find on a digital SLR. as far as I know there are not many point and shoots that have manual modes. With that, I'll support if the caption is changed to reflect that and the articals that its in also reflect that. -Fcb981 15:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Althepal 04:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a picture of an actual mode dial from a real camera would be more illustrative and more encyclopedic. --D. Monack | talk 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I really don't think this is one of Wikipedia's best. For all it's worth this is an accurate and detailed reproduction of the Treble clef, but does it deserve to be a FP? --antilivedT 04:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the treble clef is a symbol, not a detailed illustration, but thank you for your input.Althepal 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think this shows Wikipedia's best. Sure its informative, but there is nothing specal or eye catching about this picture. Z1720 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sorry, I don't see the need for a diagram of this, when a photo of this object would put it better into context, for the "encyclopedic factor" -- i.e. it would show that the typical location of such a knob is on top of a camera rather than in front of a white background. Spebudmak 21:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Actually, the location varies from camera to camera. For example, on my Kodak DX6340, it is in the front next to the screen, and on my Fuji S5200, it is on top like SLRs. I think that an actual photograph would be too specific to the camera, and it may not be clear that the photograph is referring to the dial. The encyclopedia article is not on the location of the dial (since this is not the same on every camera), but rather it is on what it does, which is best illustrated by a generic dial showing common modes to both SLRs and point-and-shoots. Sure you don't want to change your vote? Althepal 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I love original work on Wikipedia. However, I'm afraid that this illustration doesn't really live up to it's full potential. It's a mode dial...very encyclopedic, but not very interesting or stunning. It'll be really nice if it was animated...switching between the different modes. Sorry. Jumping   cheese  02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as others have noted, an animation would be distracting and reduce the quality to GIF. Althepal 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Very good work, but it is not very interesting and therefore I do not think this should be considered FP. Stefan 02:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

--Raven4x4x 04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With 12 support and 9 oppose, how much of a majority do you need for promotion? Althepal 04:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Approximately two thirds support is usually required, sorry. Dragons flight 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is almost two-thirds. What I'll do is improve the picture based on some suggestions in this discussion and try again. How's that? Althepal 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)