Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Saltwater limpet v. 2

Saltwater limpet, renomination
Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2017  at 10:56:45 (UTC)
 * Reason:Passes W3C validation, meets all other criteria for an SVG diagram. Previous nomination failed to earn enough "Support" votes to qualify, have now revised it greatly.  Already a featured picture and a finalist for Picture of the Year 2016 on Commons.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Limpet, Patellogastropoda
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
 * Creator:KDS4444


 * Support as nominator – KDS4444 (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm not sure about the black background, even more so if it's a gradient. Why did you change it? Other than that, I think it looks great. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Better and clearer with white background.  lNeverCry   22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd support with a white background. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It looked to me like the shell was coming out odd-looking with a white background, and that its presence was clearer without it. Right now, however, this doesn't look so bad, so I have changed it back to white again.  Thoughts?,   KDS4444 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The labels look disorganized (text alignment is inconsistent and looks disorganized, positioning of the lines can be adjusted to make them look more organized, some lines terminate on the shadow area). Bammesk (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks much better! I agree with Bammesk, though - sometimes the label is too far from the end of its corresponding line, and there shouldn't be any text on the shadow. Speaking of the shadow, could it be stretched a bit to the left? Sandvich18 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards oppose, but there are just some small issues with the text aligning with the line that can be fixed. Look at dorsal food channel, that text seems to be floating quite far from any line. It just looks disorganized. Mattximus (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are leaning towards oppose... because of the location of some of the lines, a thing fairly easy to fix.  Do you or does anyone have any problems with the drawing, which is the centerpiece of the illustration?  Because I can fix the placement of lines if you do not like how they are on the page, and I can change the size and location of the text if it "seems disorganized", but what I would like to hear, now that I have worked on the illustration for over two years, is that you support the drawing as a Wikipedia Featured Picture, and have some fairly minor concerns over the text and lines 'n' such!  I created this drawing out of thin air— I drew it from some simple black-and-white 2-dimensional 100-year-old biology text book pictures and augmented with colors taken from some more-recent overhead photographs to create a rendition of this animal in the way it looks in vivo, alive in its shell, in a way it can never be photographed and has never before been drawn, and the result is technically highly accurate and very complex, and I think it is worth being a featured picture on Wikipedia.  Could we make that the issue, while I go back and switch around the lines and labels (which I will be glad to do)?  KDS4444 (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you want, if I say the word support then that means I support the entire image, not just part of it. So I can't do that until the words and lines are fixed, and some other minor issues (where is the mouth? does it have one eye or two? Is it actually an eye? Why is it tentacles (plural), and not cerebral ganglia? etc...). The picture is very nice if that is what you want, but the procedure here is to only support if/when everything in the image is perfect. Mattximus (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * KDS4444: I see the changes, much better. May I suggest a couple of things: 1- now that the font is smaller, many (most) labels can be single line text (not double), that way there won't be any misalignment in the left/right justification of text lines, BTW not all browsers display SVG text and text alignment exactly the same, single lines eliminate one browser factor/freedom. 2- once the text is mostly single line, then perhaps (or perhaps not) some of the text and associated lines can be brought in closer to the shell (centerpiece), not too close to congest things, but closer than you have now. I am leaning to support, but I like to see at least suggestion #1 implemented. Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC) .. cleaned up reply. Bammesk (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Have now placed all text on individual lines, have distinguished "left" or "right" for those labeled organs which are bilateral, and have rearranged some of the labels and lines so that they should be easier to associate with each other. It looks like it is rendering correctly when viewed in a browser window, though the Commons PNG version of the file still seems to be putting too much space between some of the labels and the lines.  If anyone has suggestions on this, I am open to trying to fix it.  Are there any other aspects that I should still try to adjust or fix?  KDS4444 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * About too much space between labels and lines . . . You need to "right-justify" the text in those instances. Currently all your labels are left-justified. See the first couple of minutes of this video. Also, it helps to center-justify some of the labels, for instance "Digestive gland", and others as you see fit. A couple of other minor fixes: "stato-cyst" has an extra dash, "Perivisceral lobe" has an extra space between the two words. You can always renominate the image if you run out of time. Bammesk (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC) . . . BTW labels look fine on your other FPs:, , . Bammesk (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Or I can convert the text to outlines, since this will finally preserve my original intentions with regard to the text (I had much of the text right justified already, but it refused to appear that way in the PNG version of the image). I think this will resolve concerns with regard to the appearance of the text, though it looks like it will be too late to save this nomination, as two support votes (one from me) and one oppose does not bode well for a 3rd nomination, does it...  And I do not know what more to do.  The wall seems to be brick and my head is getting contused. KDS4444 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great, that's a Support vote from me. And I believe INeverCry's vote could be overlooked since it's pertaining to an older version of this image. Let's hope it gets promoted! Sandvich18 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support  lNeverCry   20:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is a great diagram, and I think most of the concerns above have been addressed - it would be a shame for it to fail again due to lack of quorum. TSP (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (Looking again, I think this actually already reaches quorum? I'd missed Sandvich18 and Bammesk's support votes because they were in the discussion.) TSP (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yay! Yes, I think we are there now.  KDS4444 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 11:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)