Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atomic line filter

Atomic Line Filter edit

This vector graphic depicts an abstraction of the methodology of an absorption re-emission ALF: how only a narrowband may bypass two broadband filters to create a precise and accurate filter. Here, a careful manipulation of the frequency of incoming light may be translated into a spacial translation. A similar strategy is employed in both Faraday and Voigt filters, though in these filters, the polarization of the light is shifted and not the frequency.

Reason: I believe this graphic I created (though converted by Phidauex) is both of featured quality and contributes very significantly to Atomic line filter, for which it was meant. Things that may need to be improved: caption, spacings, and the titles of the axes (I'm thinking "space" might be "time"). I'm no expert on vector graphics or image design, but I feel the image and idea have great encyclopedic value. What are your thoughts? -- Rmrfstar 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in: Atomic line filter
Creator: Rmrfstar
Nominator: Rmrfstar

Support — Rmrfstar 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Encyclopedic, but no "wow factor". Compare this or this.
~~Oppose~~ Really, although informative I could make something as good as that in 15 min on powerpoint. no wow factor. -Fcb981 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no... unless it somehow creates vectors now O_o. gren グレン 00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG file type. sorry I clearly jumped to conclutions far too quickly. I'm not totaly sure what this is and maybe at some point I will look at the article on Vectors but until then (as I am unable to look at svg?? file type on my mac) I will strike out my vote. Sorry again, I just clicked on the picture and saw some lines and arrows and figured that was it. Does it move or something?. Anyway, as you can see vectors are lost on me next time feel free to call me on it sooner. -Fcb981 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criteria 3 and 7--neither of which this image can ever achieve. You did a great job and you probably can't make a better image for the subject but--it's just the wrong subject for getting an FP.

Well I can't argue with you about Criterion 3, but I do think it satisfies #7, as best as can be hoped for this subject. Ideally, I think, any illustratable subject should enjoy the possibility of being represented by a featured picture. Indeed, the subtitle for #7 is, "It is taken or created in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image. The picture makes readers want to know more." I believe it is satisfactory even in this respect. If you do not, I'll respect your judgement on the matter. -- Rmrfstar 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]