Orbital Altitudes of several earth satellites

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2011 at 14:34:19 (UTC)

Reason

It is clear and concise, high resolution, and presents information in a compelling way. It adds value to the articles it is featured in and is used in several global articles. It was promoted as a valued picture before the project was cancelled.

Articles in which this image appears

Satellite, Medium Earth orbit, Low Earth orbit, High Earth orbit

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

User:Rrakanishu

• Support as nominator --Rrakanishu (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Should be redone in SVG format. SVG is easier to edit, easier to translate, and more usable in a variety of a situations (scalability).
• The scale "1 px = 10 Km" is not as useful as a visual scale, it is also incorrect when the the image is viewed at different dimensions other than full (like on this page).
• Some of the text could probably be a bit bigger for better readability.
• Per above comments, I oppose at this time. If those are resolved, I may be able to support. It seems to be a very valuable image.

Jujutacular ^talk 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth is raster and it wouldn't be useful to convert it or embed it into a vector file, also I think editing and translating it is not that hard as the bg is mostly black.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth could be a somewhat stylized vector image such as this or this. JBarta (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Support There is too much stuff going on in the Low Earth orbit area. Too hard to follow the lines.... Fix this and it will get full support from me. Dusty777 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it's perfectly readable and not something that can or should be "fixed". It's a technical image (more or less)... it's supposed to require a little close examination to understand what's going on. JBarta (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Support I find this helpful. Dusty777, a lot of stuff happens in the Low Earth Orbit area and this diagram presents it in a way that makes sense. Pine^talk 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Oops, I didn't catch the typos. There's another one on the far right side of the image. Earth should be capitalized. Fix those and I think I'll support.Pine^talk 02:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Typo: "[...] are particularly usefull for capturing images [...]": usefull -> useful --Kabelleger (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that same sentence, there should be an apostrophe in "earths." Also, punctuation should be consistent: sometimes full sentences are ending with a period and sometimes not. Chick Bowen 21:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longitude is also misspelt as logitude on the rightmost caption. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose not supporting until SVG - for the reasons mentioned above. Unless a diagram is of a particular historical significance itself, or irreplaceable third-party generated, we should strive for SVG diagrams. Also the mis-spelling is not something we expect in a high-quality diagram. Fix that and its awesome. --Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Verifiable sources should be included. "...data was collected from many Wikipedia articles and various other sites" doesn't sound convincing. Jó Kritika (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the information should be sourced. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I appreciate the effort to compile the information, but putting it in a format that will be difficult to edit is a bad idea. The phrase "very first" makes my teeth grate, something that is the "very first" isn't any more "first" than something that is just "first".--RDBury (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Modified: I fixed all the typo's mentioned, and I am willing to do whatever needs to be done to improve this image. I have no intentions to make it an SVG though because I see no reason it would ever need to be scaled enough to warrant that. Rrakanishu (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't about scaling so much as making it possible for other people to easily make text modifications. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second that. For example, if it were SVG, we could have fixed all the text issues right now very quickly and get this excellent diagram to FP quicker. But its a JPG and we can't do anything :/.--Cerejota (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll third it. One of the troublesome things about images that contain textual information is the difficulty in updating or correcting them. When it's an image, the only person who can make the change is the person who created the image. If others try to change the image, you run into all sorts of problems with fonts and colors, etc. Over time, the image can get a little messy. Add to that, your image is a JPG. All it takes is one person in the chain saving it at high compression and the image gets screwed up... maybe even unreadable. In the long run, the SVG format makes WAY more sense for this diagram. JBarta (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I really like the diagram, but it still needs a format switch to svg, and sourcing yet. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • as for sourcing, do you mean the source of the earth image or where I collected all the altitude data? Rrakanishu (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't really consider that anyone would need to change any text, why couldn't it be used as is. I suppose I can try to create it as svg but I'm not as good with illustrator as I am with photoshop and I fear the image will loose something in the process. Rrakanishu (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any diagram with text should be expected to be updated or spell checked in the future, and the free license implies anyone can do so. SVG facilitates this process greatly, so it is a nice standard to have. For example, I do not object it not being SVG, bu tif it were SVG my objection would be fixed quickly, even by myself!--Cerejota (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • SVG format also allows for translations into other languages, for example. --KFP (contact - edits) 22:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Full Support Changing the color of the lines makes it a lot easier to follow, full support from me!Dusty777 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in its current format, this image should be SVG. I'll be happy to do the conversion if the original author is not confident with Illustrator/Inkscape/etc. - Zephyris _Talk 10:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Its good but if it was SVG it would be better also the scale of 1 pixel to 100km is not that good Jamesrules90 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on the svg now ;) I know it's last minute but my pc has been down since last I posted. I'll post back soon. Rrakanishu (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose. Capitalization issues. Should be SVG. Hard to read. BrokenSegue 09:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I finished the vector image. But when I converted to SVG some fonts and shadows got messed up (I knew something would go wrong) I'll try to fix that tomorrow. For now at least its SVG. Must sleep now. Rrakanishu (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A vector version of this image is also available, and should be used in place of this raster image where the raster image contains information that could be stored more efficiently and/or accurately in the SVG format, as a vector graphic. If its license requires the preservation of attribution or revision history, the raster version of this image should not be deleted, in order to maintain this information. For more information, see the documentation on MediaWiki's support of SVG images. File:Featured picture candidates/Orbital Altitudes  File:Orbitalaltitudes.svg

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]