Wikipedia:Picture peer review/4 Stroke Engine

4 Stroke Engine
[[File:4StrokeEngine Ortho 3D.gif|thumb|right|260px|Original - Animated scheme of a four stroke internal combustion engine, Otto principle:
 * 1) Suction stroke - Air and vaporised fuel are drawn in.
 * 2) Compression stroke - Fuel vapor and air are compressed and ignited.
 * 3) Power stroke - Fuel combusts and piston is pushed downwards.
 * 4) Exhaust stroke - Exhaust is driven out.]]

This is a large improvement on the existing image; it is higher resolution, has smoother animation and removes some of the unnecessary detail.


 * Articles this image appears in:None as yet, but will be on:
 * 1) Engine
 * 2) Internal combustion engine
 * 3) Poppet valve
 * 4) Camshaft
 * 5) Petrol engine
 * 6) Four-stroke engine
 * 7) Cylinder (engine)
 * 8) Crankcase
 * 9) Single cylinder engine


 * Creator:Richard Wheeler (Zephyris)


 * Suggested by: - Zephyris Talk 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Note there is a smaller resolution version also available for embedding.
 * I think an animation of this principle is very useful. The big one doesn't animate? Not to worry, it's too big to embed anyway at 17MB. Personally I think the description should be enhanced, maybe with some labelling, and poor wording such as 'suction stroke' improved. However, other than running a bit smoother, I think I'd need some convincing that it's an improvement over the existing FP File:4-Stroke-Engine.gif. --jjron (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The big version is animated, but Wiki doesn't produce animated thumbnails... Obviously improvement of the caption is easy, at the moment it is copied directly from the existing FP. In terms of improvement I would argue: 1. this version is not pixelated, 2. this version removes unneeded detail making the diagram clearer, 3. this version has far more frames, therefore is a smoother animation. On these terms I would argue this image is better than the existing FP, plus I am available here and now to apply any improvements people suggest! - Zephyris Talk 23:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't animate on the image page either when I view that, so I guess you have to open the full image; I wish we could thumbnail animations. In that case I think we'd definitely be only featuring the big one in principle, but in reality featuring the smaller one as that one would be getting used in article space. Yes, you make some good points - I actually liked some of the detail on the original, but now looking at them side by side, I see some more positives to the new one (can I suggest you change that characterless 1 in yours to something with a serif though, like in the existing one? That's jarring with me every time I view it.). I personally - personally - feel the animation may also benefit from being slowed down slightly, but that could just be me, possibly more to the speed of the existing one. BTW your spark is considerably better as well. Labelling on the actual animation may be too messy, but perhaps we could create a single frame version that named all the key parts? --jjron (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * how many pistols are there in these engines 41.122.81.64 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A new slightly slower version with a serif'd "1" will be simple to make... I also have a labeled version as a WIP, I have avoided it so far because it is not multilingual but I will finish it and upload it as an alternative...
 * Actually, Wikipedia does support animated thumbnails. See the last two thumbnails in this gallery. Recent behind-the-scenes changes made any animations that, in their native size, have 25 million or more total animation pixels (pixel height times pixel width times number of frames) become frozen. So big animations can be “thumbnails” only if they are specified in their native size. I make all my “big” animations (like this one “Cobalt”) in the size they will be actually used in the article. That spinning “NURBS” animation is a thumbnail, but it is specified in native size. The pint-size ones in the gallery are also a thumbnail of sorts. Those wouldn’t work if either of them exceeded 25 million pixels when full size. BTW, I like this second animation. But I would suggest arrows or particles in the gas stream in both the intake and exhaust ports to indicate the direction of gas flow. Greg L (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Another example of Wikipedia developers screwing over content. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Images Updated Added in/out arrows for fuel and exhaust, replaced numbers with serif'd font and slowed animation. - Zephyris Talk 07:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking better I think. Not a fan of the font used though, looks bad - the one in the existing FP looks much nicer. Yeah, the arrows are OK. Personally I'd use more standard thinner black arrows within the gas stream that actually overlap into the engine. Not sure that any of that should go beyond the engine anyway, as it suggests it's coming/going straight from the external air rather than through the (unshown) manifolds - the way the existing one works suggests that it's the diagram that stops there rather than the engine itself (does that make sense?). Maybe the arrows come in a little quick - you've probably timed them to the exact frame where the valve first starts opening, but just watching the animation it feels very sudden. Going good. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconder:
 * Well done (Very well done). I think the one captioned “Low res version for imbedding” is outstanding and hope to see it on FPC. Greg L (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusion:
 * D&R at FPC. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

