Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vernier caliper

Vernier caliper(scientific instrument)


This is a difference to my animation below: Using the caliper. It is adressed to those who prefer a static image to better understand the way the verniers are used to interpolate readings. I tried to produce a svg version, with no success (maybe someone can help). Created with CorelDraw by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

I don't really care about 3. but I think svg is probably necessary • Le  on  01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Absolutely *beautiful* image, but
 * 1) I don't know if I can fully support it until someone creates an .svg given its "flatness" and the quality of e.g. wasp morphology and Giza pyramid complex.
 * 2) I think it's confusing having multiple 1s and 2s; could you have forked pointers?
 * 3) I think the 3D effect on the fastener at the left of the retainer doesn't suit.
 * Info Here is a new version. As for the svg, I'll wait for someone to help. Alvesgaspar 09:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC) es todo mentira jajajajajaj
 * Weak Support Edit 1 • Le  on  11:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either SVG I've just traced the diagram in Inkscape. Original is encyclopedic but the legend is not obvious and I have added it in to the image itself to be more obvious. (PS to author: are the markings grey or black? It look a bit dark now, hope it's fine with you). -- antilived T 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either SVG. Thank you for your help, seems perfect now . I have a lot to learn about Inkscape! The scale markings are black. Alvesgaspar 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the pointer doesn't show... The svg file displays fine on Firefox but doesn't render properly to png on WP? Any inputs or help? -- antilived T 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. This seems a bit odd to me. The other nomination seems is getting support, and now this nomination which is basically the same image is probably also getting support. That's the edit bonus which was mentioned by someone else before, where people just choose between versions instead of judging the image itself. Here one flaw (the file format) was fixed, and now everyone will support. Anyways, milking two FPs out of a color change and a handful of numbers seems kind of unfair to the other contributors. --Dschwen 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I traced this is because IMHO this is better at illustrating a vernier caliper than the animated one. I have no idea how it works after watching it dozens of times and it's the discussion in the FPC that told me that you are supposed to read the lined up value on the vernier. This one doesn't attempt to show you how to use it (rather confusingly) and the operation of the vernier caliper is better told as text. -- antilived T 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't nominate the picture, and I certainly appreciate any high quality bitmap to SVG conversion. I'm rather puzzled about the original nominator and the apparent FP fixation. Good work is always welcome, in fact every picture should be clear and illustrative to its article. Does this mean every good picture should be nominated for FP status? Twice? --Dschwen 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose per Dschwen. I've already supported the animated version which is more illustrative anyway. Debivort 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support SVG I think the two images illustrate different things. Both are aesthetically great images; they both explain beautifully different aspects of the article. I think it's just like featuring both Michigan State University and History of Michigan State University -- "Vernier Caliper" and "Using a Vernier Caliper". Kudos for elegance. • Le  on  22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support SVG(no legend) 4th image Exactly what a featured diagram should be. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I prefer the animated version. I only oppose because the other nomination is ongoing. If it were to fail, then I would change my vote on this picture to support... -Glaurung 06:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Per Dschwen - Wikipedia is about peer review, which this image has certainly benefitted from. Is the problem not that rather than the FP candidates process being used to select FPs, it is being used to improve images (which, though a good thing, is not the point of the FP candidates process)? Pstuart84 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's very desirable that the candidacy process improves images; that's what happens on WP:FAC. The only reason FPC typically doesn't is because photographs often can't be improved. Redquark 01:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, and apart from cropping no edit can really improve the quality of a picture, at most it can improve perceived quality. That's why constructive criticism is important. If a picture has serious flaws there is not much point in doctoring around to get it through FPC. Rather point out flaws and give advice how to get a better result in a reshoot. --Dschwen 13:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have noted your points - thanks for their clarity. I would simply refer users to Picture Peer Review - Pstuart84 17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. With some changes:
 * Remove the text from the image:
 * Text should be stored as text, easier to machine read, copy and paste etc.
 * Easier to translate (don't have to recreate the SVG).
 * Illegible at low resolution.
 * Remove the "WIKITEK" self reference.
 * ed g2s &bull; talk 16:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, what does INOX TEMP mean? Or is that supposed to be "index"? ed g2s &bull; talk 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Addressed in SVG#2. ed g2s &bull; talk 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Info This is a replica of a real caliper, with the brand removed. I'm not sure what INOX TEMP means, it might be "inox tempered [steel]". As for the "WIKITEK" and "WT" it is, of course, a joke (not a self-reference, for sure...). Alvesgaspar 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the image is being used elsewhere, they wouldn't want to Wikipedia reference on it, and we are supposed to be providing reusable content. Anyway, it is only a minor issue. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Requiring further input Obviously the SVG versions are most popular, but no-one has specified their preference between the two. We'll need some clarification before deciding here. Raven4x4x 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Support of second SVG without the legend, I'd support new version of same image without the legend tags. wtfunkymonkey 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think all support votes, except the last two, go to the first svg version (the one with legends). Ths last version came in late in the process and has only two. Alvesgaspar 11:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support SVG w/ legend, but I think the one without is superior and gets a strong supportLeon 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support SVG version As an illustration of a vernier caliper. I'm not sure why the SVG file type is better than any other, but everyone else seems to think so.  One thing though, the scale lines seem a bit blurred. Terri G 14:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The blurring only occurs in the bitmap versions (jpg, png, etc.), because the picture was converted from a vectorized drawing. The lines appear perfect when the picture in opened in svg format. Alvesgaspar 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the one with the legend in the picture. Terri G 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (moved to make it clear I'd made the edit). 149.155.96.6 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great image! 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)