Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Molecular mechanics

Reason: Explains complex equations in an intuitive graphical way.
Articles this image appears in: Molecular mechanics, Force field (chemistry)
Creator: Edboas

Support as nominator --Edboas (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be more "intuitive" than this... ;-) Also, should be SVG, not PNG. --Janke | Talk 07:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am, in general in favour of PNG to SVG conversion but this is not a good candidate for SVG conversion. Firstly, the gray hydrophobic 'shroud' is technically challenging to convert and would be a poor approximation to the raster render. Secondly, the lighting from the render is difficult (although not impossible) to replicate in SVG; minor differences will make the resulting SVG look subtly 'wrong' in terms of perspective. For proposed solution, see below. Dhatfield (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Excellent work, highly encyclopedic should be a FP with a little work. Problems: cramped (we're not going to run out of pixels) with inconsistent graph axis / title labelling. Will benefit from better graph linking to relevant bond angles. Please upload all elements with different 'type' separately

a render of the 3D model of the molecule with hydrophobic shroud (the base image). If you can provide a render source as well, so much the better.

use slightly lower lighting on the render to avoid the 'blown' highlights on the molecules and shroud making for a better image and much better results from (potential) post-processing).

the arrow around the shroud is not correctly drawn and is much easier to edit if it's in a separate image.
text - important for this to be separate to get the benefit of internationalisation inherent in vector diagrams
graphs separate to allow for easy layout changes. Dhatfield (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. It's probably a very clever illustration, but not, unfortunately, even close to self-explanatory. Maybe check a standard chemistry textbook to see how they do it, and possibly break it up more clearly? That might help with making it less cramped as well. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I studied organic chemistry II and layout issues aside, this is by far the most beautiful and intuitive diagram I have seen on this topic. 'Self-explanatory' is an unreasonable requirement as evidenced by this FP. Dhatfield (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement at all. I was trying to avoid saying the candidate image was shite, but I realise there are people who don't understand courtesy and instead apparently require strong language to be used. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree (about anything you just said) and while you're here, you might want to check this out. Wikilove. Dhatfield (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. At full resolution, the molecules are pixellated and the text is not antialised (should it be?) Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I downloaded it and resized it to 75% or 50% of it's current size that would address both of your concerns; it would also be pointless destruction of information. The source is 2,880 × 2,200! Complaining about artifacts that can only be seen because the author uploaded at a fantastically high resolution is punishing good images for being good. Dhatfield (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded an SVG version, and provided a link to the POV-Ray source. I also made the caption clearer. Edboas (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uploading files other than images to Wikipedia or Commons is allowed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The svg version is dead. i.e. it's just the raster image enbeded in a svg shell so it's not truly scalable. hence it's really just a duplciate of the png file. /Lokal _Profil 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, most of the image is just an enbeded raster. Som parts, like the lines, arrows, and graphs are traced to vector format (better to recreate). However unless pov-ray has a svg output option any svg recreation of the image will involve a lot of manual work. Since the png is a very generous size I'm not sure keeping it as a raster is a problem though. To Papa Lima Whiskey: Don't think .pov files are allowed on Commons. png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, svg and djvu only. /Lokal _Profil 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded edit & support as nominator I'll supply the base PNG and the text and labels SVG overlay separately for international use but I'd like to settle on a final version first. Graphs have slight artifacts to be resolved, but that's not going to change the outcome of a vote. Suggestions for 2D or 3D improvement welcome. Dhatfield (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now also available as Edit 2 with active links (see here). I am enquiring about redirecting the hi-res thumb directly to the SVG, rather than through a text link, at Commons:Graphics village pump. Dhatfield (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the edit better, without the black line around the hydrophobic area. I'm more used to seeing them this way. But I'm afraid my quantum mechanics or physical chemistry is not up to judging the value of this image. PS Although Lennard-Jones potential is a mathematically straight-forward approximation the concept isn't usually covered in a "standard chemistry text." --Blechnic (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The svg image seems blurry. Until the png/svg problems are fixed, I'm going to oppose. If they are fixed, I may reconsider. Clegs (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 withdrawn for clarity. Were you referring to the first Edit or Edit 2? Edit 2 was just an example for linking. The svg in the first edit is anti-aliased due to the high res of the source. Dhatfield (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]