Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kuiper belt and scattered disc objects

Kuiper belt and scattered disc objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2012 at 09:03:16 (UTC)

Original – "Projection of the aligned orbits of the scattered, classical and resonant objects. Plotted by a program written by Eurocommuter."

Alt various changes to layout and presentation

Reason: High EV drawing showing the polar and ecliptic views of Kuiper belt and Scattered disc objects. The drawing is in SVG format.
Articles in which this image appears: Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, and Portal:Astronomy/Featured/October 2008
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator: Eurocommuter

Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 09:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note there are some minor imperfections with what looks like partially erased yellow and red rings in the lower left corner of the image. These don't affect the EV. I can't edit an SVG image but if someone can erase those, that would help. Pine^✉ 09:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~: I'm sold on the EV of the data, but the representation is to my mind badly lacking. It needs a tidy (the red stroke on the views; a more traditional legend, needed, I think; the diagrams needlessly almost overlap...). I'm going to try and find the time to do an alt for this, if I don't, then make this a neutral. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Officially neutral; have uploaded my alternative which I believe is a considerable improvement to presentation. Structurally I cleaned up the SVG file as well. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I prefer the edit, but I think the legend is lacking. Would it be improved by replacing the dry text with a key somewhat inline with how the London Underground labels the different lines? 109.149.73.110 (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, there's something going on with whitespace above the scale to the left of zero. 109.149.73.110 (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removed the whitespace - if the markings can't now be seen (and I think they can) putting a white rectangle behind them is not the right solution. I'm in two minds about the key – keys aren't necessarily required to look pleasing, they're expected to give information. Having said that, if others would like a graphical key, I'll change it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer alt thanks for the edits. Pine^✉ 06:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The alt is starting to look nice, but I can't differentiate all of the objects in orbit, regardless of how far I zoom in because the lines are too thick. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)#[reply]

I don't think that's what the viewer is likely to do, because the diagram illustrates the general spread of objects – they aren't individually labelled or anything. I tried reducing the stroke but it takes a reduction so great that it ruins the utility at of the file at all except the highest zoom levels. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are the criteria for inclusion for this diagram? As it stands, the extreme (80 degree tilt) orbit in the bottom panel does not appear to be mirrored in the top panel. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is in the light gray on the top panel also as a light gray orbit. Pine^✉ 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is, it's included incorrectly. This is advertised as a "polar view", so that orbit would have to extend only 5 AU to the left and 20 AU to the right, and I see no such object.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file description page gives details. The orbits have been consolidated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I did not see that there was additional description on that page. In that case, Weak Support Alt; I'd honestly rather see all their true orbits as they actually appear in relation to one another, but I suppose there is encyclopedic value in seeing them compared in this way. Technically excellent.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]