Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scallop Diagram2.svg

Scallop Diagram Redux
Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2013 at 13:47:39 (UTC)
 * Reason: This is a recreation of a file I previously nominated (a few days ago) that was in JPG format. A few editors said they would support it if it were in SVG format, but otherwise would oppose.  There didn't seem to be any other opposition to the image as a candidate, and there was clear support for it in terms of its quality and style.  So I have regenerated File:Scallop_Diagram.jpg in SVG format.
 * Articles in which this image appears: Scallop
 * FP category for this image: Mollusca
 * Creator: KDS444 (Again, image was uploaded through my Wikimedia account, not my Wikipedia account.)


 * Support as nominator -- KDS 4444   Talk  13:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment While I am actually impressed by your shading work, the labels are blocky and unreadable due to Wikipedia's thumbnailer. That's a major problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose that is not a vector image. It is a JPEG file embedded inside an SVG file and therefore possesses none of the advantages of a vector format. That also explains why the labels are blocky and unreadable. Hence my original oppose still stands. dllu (t,c) 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I was right that the shading on the internal organs is probably undoable in SVG? If so, it may be worth reviving the old JPEG nom. Though perhaps after a couple weeks, since as prematurely-closed and a bad nomination is too much to do before a proper nomination. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible, it's just a lot of work. If I am to convert this to SVG, I will probably be using something like Inkscape rather than coding up the SVG by hand as I did for the teletherapy capsule above. But I'm quite busy this month so I won't be able to do the conversion any time soon. dllu (t,c) 23:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very poor compared with original image. Note "jaggies". Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I wondered why the conversion process went so "smoothly" on Illustrator, and why nothing looked at all different once I "converted" it. Yet it tells me it has generated an SVG file, and the MIME format comes up as SVG.  Looks like I need to improve my skills at Illustrator.  My apologies for the nomination.  Let me see what I can do to it with Illustrator.  If I can't get a decent SVG file out of it, I can certainly drop the whole thing.  Thanks for your help. KDS444 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the main problem is text scaling, can you put vector text over a bitmap image in an SVG file? 86.130.67.47 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can put vector text over a bitmap image. dllu (t,c) 01:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Ok, what about now??? KDS444 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For me (Win 7, IE 10) it seems to render OK,* and appears to be a genuine vector graphic. I wonder if the default size for rendering should be just a tad bigger though? There is a noticeable rendering delay, but it's hardly surprising since the file is apparently 19.4 MB in size. I know it's quite a complicated picture, but should it be so big? 86.176.213.160 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC) *Though actually I've just noticed that when it's rendered on a Wikipedia page the "Gills", "Tentacles" and "Eyes" legends incorrectly impinge on the associated red lines, whereas when I view http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Scallop_Diagram2.svg directly they don't. Is this a difference between some Wikipedia module rendering it as a bitmap versus IE rendering it "native"? I do not fully understand how this stuff works technically... 86.176.213.160 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Duh, I just realised that the label positioning is different because a different font is being used. In the "native" IE rendering, it's a kind of weedy serif font, whereas in the Wikipedia rendering it's a nicer sans-serif font. Is that right? Shouldn't the letter shape definitions be embedded in the SVG file? 86.176.213.160 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct, at which point I face a new dilemma: the image was created using what I thought was a simple, professional looking font, Myriad Pro. That is the font I was expecting the image to have when I converted it into an SVG file.  Turns out, there is a setting in Illustrator which allows me to preserve this font by rendering it as outlines rather than as text.  BUT-- one of the Wikipedia policies with regard to diagrams, apparently, is that their text (in HTML) be editable so that they can be recreated for use in other languages without having to recreate the SVG file, remove the existing outlined text, and then add "real" text in the new language.  So I am stumped as to what to do.  I do NOT like the way the text is being mauled in various browsers, but I understand that Arabic probably doesn't have a Myriad Pro font and I don't want the picture to lose its candidacy for failure to follow formatting procedures.  Thoughts on that one?  KDS444 (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Myriad Pro is copyrighted and may not display correctly everywhere. You can try using a free font such as DejaVu but not everyone has it either (MediaWiki does, though, so PNG versions should render correctly). Personally I just use . Try posting on WP:SVG Help. Be careful when converting a copyrighted font like Myriad Pro to a path or outline since scalable font outlines can be protected under copyright. dllu (t,c) 21:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In many diagrams that include text, the layout depends quite sensitively on the exact dimensions at which the text is rendered. Unless you include the letter shape definitions in the SVG file, I don't see how you can be sure that the diagram will display correctly for other people. If the user doesn't have the specified font then some unknown font will presumably be substituted, and the layout may break. The same would seem to be true if users have different default fonts for a particular class (such as "sans-serif"). It only takes small differences for things to start to overlap or get misaligned, and then the diagram starts to look a mess, or in bad cases (e.g. of misalignment) will no longer even make sense. The idea that you can translate diagrams simply by editing the text seems mistaken to me. OK, it may work in simple cases but often the text being a different length will mess up the layout, and the layout will need to be adjusted. 86.169.184.182 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct that converting font to path data will give a more consistent, better typographical appearance (as mentioned in WP:SVG help). Still, for simple text, like this diagram, precise placement is not necessary so I recommend leaving the text as is for easy translation and editing. dllu (t,c) 18:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, even in this graphic, if the text is not the expected length then the labels will not be properly aligned with the red lines, and there will be unsightly gaps or overlaps. The diagram may still be intelligible but it is likely to look messy. (In fact, in the version I'm looking at above now, the alignment of and spacing between the labels and the red lines is poor in places and noticeably inconsistent throughout. Whether that's a font problem or an original layout problem I'm not sure.) 86.169.184.182 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ... oh, one more thing, when I zoom in close in the current version (the version currently displayed above) the text is seen to be really poor quality, like a vectorisation that has gone wrong. For an example screenshot, see http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/6654/svgr.png. 86.169.184.182 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 14:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)