Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Teller-Ulam device

Teller-Ulam device
This is a self-nomination, but I am very happy with how this came out. Hydrogen bombs can be rather complicated mechanical devices and quite a number of historical events have revolved around their supposed secrets. This is a schematic and stylized explanation of their basic layout, as far as is known in the non-secret domain. I've previous drawn some more comprehensive diagrams (i.e. this sequence) of this but I wanted something which would be very basic, convey the main point (fission fuel above, fusion fuel below), would be very vertical (to better fit on Wikipedia pages and still be visible), and be in more-or-less the same style as the other graphics on the nuclear weapons design page. Currently it is on the page for Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb". This is the first time I tried to show pseudo-3D cutaways in any real sense and I'm happy with the results. -- Fastfission 22:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC) +10 / -5 -- Solipsist 06:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Self-nominate and support. - Fastfission 22:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Mgm|(talk) 11:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Don't really appeal for me. * Thorpe * 17:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you provide something more constructive? What aspect of it? The drawing style? The content? --Fastfission 22:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 01:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support it, but it provides too much information that can be used by terrrrrists. -- brian0918 &#153;  04:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not secret. Terrorists either know already or find out for themselves. Mgm|(talk) 07:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * If terrorists used my diagrams to be a base of their weapons, then the world would be a pretty safe place, I'll say that. It's not only not secret, it doesn't pretend to actually be "accurate", whatever that means in this context (which isn't a whole lot, but that's a long story). Anyway, if I could compile this from public sources (a google search for "teller ulam" will bring up a dozen other variations) then so can terrrrists.--Fastfission 22:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sweet Jebus I was joking :) brian0918  &#153;  19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Nice diagram! WB 06:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support That is a great diagram &mdash;Josh Lee 01:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - very classy diagram - Adrian Pingstone 16:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we should not have English (or any language) labels in diagrams on Wiki projects (as discussed here, so it seems a bit out of place to feature such an image. Also, we already have a nuclear bomb diagram featured (with English labeling too, incidentally). Also the sideways lettering is awkward anyway. But the diagram is nice. Will Support if changed to numerical labeling. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 09:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Because all languages use the same characters to represent numbers.... -- brian0918 &#153;  18:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not on commons, it's on en. English is no problem here. If you want language-agnostic featured pictures, stay on Commons. --Golbez 19:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * [cough] rephrase: THIS isn't commons. The pic is on commons, but this is the FPC discussion for en, not commons. --Golbez 00:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't this FP just for the ENGLISH Wikipedia? People are welcome to translate it into their own languages; the whole point of creating this image was to make it quick and easy to see what was going on in the arrangement, without a lengthy explanation or additional screen of information. Anyway, I think a few lines in one other FC discussion is hardly enough to start talking about any policy decision being set -- especially when the text itself is designed to be a purposeful part of the image (and is easily removed and translated for those who wish to do it). --Fastfission 02:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, FPC is no place to talk policy. So I still oppose. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 20:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Right side of blue core cut away should be flat blue or linear gradient, not radial gradient. Otherwise it implies that it is not flat and looks confusing. That's my only criticism. Kaldari 21:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're probably right about that. It will only take a moment to fix, but at the moment the computer it is on is in a heap on the floor (just moved). --Fastfission 02:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Fastfission, you did it again! :) Neutralitytalk 07:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Chris 73 Talk 07:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose The image is informative and illustrates the article very well, but I don't find it striking or titillating or anything. Perhaps the fact that we already have a nuclear bomb diagram as a featured pic is also swaying my vote. -Lommer | talk 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear and informative. Enochlau 08:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ok, but not great. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  10:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * (Note, I replaced the PNG version with the more recent SVG version, which looks the same but is in a better format. dbenbenn | talk 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

