According to the same standards, the images might be:
Wikipedia's best work
pleasing to the eye
However, also according to the standards, the images are not:
of a high resolution
The image is approximately 450x450, but I believe it still does qualify under being a featured image because it is a diagram, and not a photo. It is also sharp, clear, and looks good.
What I want to be reviewed is:
1- is the resolution okay
2- is it considered wikipedia's bets work or pleasuring to the eye
.. and therefore, should it be nominated as a featured picture or not.
Pages they appear in:Curved mirror, but more could be added.
Nominate and support. - Eshcorp 07:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
People are going to want svg. BrokenSegue 15:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it could be done as svg.. at least not with the tools I use, is there a good vector drawing tool other than Inkscape that might provide more functionality? --Eshcorp 16:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
One small mistake - "curvature" is misspelled. Also, I think showing multiple rays of light and their reflections would be better. See, for comparison, DrBob's lens diagrams (in svg). --Davepape 16:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I will fix the mistake and add examples. It may take a while though. --Eshcorp 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I've made an SVG version in Inkscape. I'm dabbling in things I know nothing about as usual, so let me know if anything needs to be changed on it and I'll get it sorted. If you like that I'll make a similar one for the concave mirror. Icey 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
