Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Munsell-system.svg

Munsell color system

 * Reason:I created this diagram a few days ago to illustrate the Munsell color system article. I think it turned out especially well.
 * Articles this image appears in:Munsell color system, Color theory
 * Creator:jacobolus

MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator &mdash; jacobolus (t) 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't show enough to enable someone not familiar with this to understand the entire system. You would need a complete slice of one color muted from black to white, not just the middle color sector muted to gray. Hard to do in 2-D! --Janke | Talk 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, it maybe can't be understood independently from the text of the article.  But I'm not sure how achievable that is.  Note that there is a complete slice of one color shown a bit further down the wiki page.  --jacobolus (t) 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could put the numbers on the side and expand the slice vertically...but you would block the puple-ish hues behind it on the ring.--HereToHelp 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I just think there's value in two separate diagrams. One that shows the whole shape of the color solid, and another that shows what its dimensions are, as this diagram does (and maybe even a third diagram that just shows particular slices through the solid horizontally and vertically).  I'm not sure there's much benefit to be gained by combining the two, and I can't see a particularly good way to do that.  --jacobolus (t) 04:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my question then is can every diagram enable someone with no familiarity to understand the entire thing being shown? I thought the point of a diagram was to illustrate an article, not to replace it.  Not that your criticism isn't legitimate; maybe there's some way to accomplish all of the above. --jacobolus (t) 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The chroma, hue, and value are plotted to make a cylinder, a 3D figure. It is therefore very difficult to represent it in 2D. Perhaps an animation could be made? (Not to devalue a 2D but vector image, however).--HereToHelp 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think an animation could be made, but it would serve a different purpose from this image. That is, it would show the overall shape of the thing, rather than labeling the parts.  I think this diagram still has value independent of that (and is still pretty good, IMO).  --jacobolus (t) 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of color systems, I've found no mention of the Ostwald system in WP - only a short note in Wilhelm Ostwald... Anybody? --Janke | Talk 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that almost all color systems go unmentioned in WP, and in general the articles about color theory are underdeveloped, with a misguided emphasis on the RGB and CYMK models. Wikiproject Color has an absurd focus on making stub articles about large numbers of (arbitrarily) named colors, instead of explaining color theory. It would be good to have a summary of color models in their historical context at Color models or similar, but that is a rather large project to undertake. --jacobolus (t) 00:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment well maybe I should just withdraw the nomination, as only one person is actually willing to offer an opinion. Maybe FPC is just not meant for diagrams? --jacobolus (t) 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is a very high quality diagram that quite intuitively shows this color system. While I cannot judge how accurate it is, since I'm not familiar with the system, I can say that this 3d representation does a far and away better job of explanation than the other flat 2d images from the article. That said, I'm willing to be corrected if the image does not accurately describe the color model. But I don't think it should be demoted because it does not represent every aspect of the system. --Asiir 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It's definitely of good quality, and it's a great illustration in general. However, I know that if I had no background in colour theory I'd be confused looking at it, and there is the problem Janke mentioned with the varying value levels. Maybe putting one near values 2 & 3 for yellow-red (is there a reason this isn't called orange?) or yellow would help. As it stands, this is almost as good as it gets for a diagram. Amphy 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's called yellow-red (or actually YR) because the purpose of the system is to get away from color names, and instead specify things numerically. So the 5 hues aren't supposed to be the colors a person would associate with those names, but are just instead supposed to provide evenly spaced reference points in the hue circle.  --jacobolus (t) 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)