SU25 diagram
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 07:58:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- Awesome diagram which complements the schematics well. Currently (25 January) POTD on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sukhoi Su-25
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
- Creator
- Altoing
- Support as nominator -- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Encyclopedic and interesting to the extreme. Very well done. – JBarta ( talk) 10:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom Did you get your laptop going? JJ Harrison ( talk) 10:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I'm on the Toshiba, which is second rate despite being newer. Usually Mrs. Crisco uses it. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OpposeThis is an excellent drawing but it needs labelling of the components being shown. The value of a line drawing over a photo is that this kind of annotation is possible. Therefore to me this falls down on EV. - Zephyris Talk 12:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I had considered that as well. The more I thought about it however, the more I thought labels would simply add unnecessary clutter to an otherwise clean & handsome line drawing. Do you really need labels to tell you things like WING, TAIL, SEAT & ENGINE? I think it's a drawing just meant to be looked over and taken in. Labels would be more useful in more detailed drawings of components or sections rather than the entire plane. At least that's my thought. –
JBarta (
talk)
12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The new usage of the image certainly improves the EV greatly. - Zephyris Talk 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I had considered that as well. The more I thought about it however, the more I thought labels would simply add unnecessary clutter to an otherwise clean & handsome line drawing. Do you really need labels to tell you things like WING, TAIL, SEAT & ENGINE? I think it's a drawing just meant to be looked over and taken in. Labels would be more useful in more detailed drawings of components or sections rather than the entire plane. At least that's my thought. –
JBarta (
talk)
12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Can I suggest this probably could do with better article usage to improve EV? At the moment it's buried a heck of a long way down in its single article, but more concerning is that it doesn't even have a caption (much less a good caption). Re the source, is that English version actually in English? And I've noted the reply above about labelling, but I'm rather concerned that apart from not having a caption, that this contains absolutely no information about it on the image page, other than the name of the plane. All that may be acceptable on Commons, but for the 'pedias, I reckon it should be better. -- jjron ( talk) 15:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Opposeper my comments above. OK, so I just looked this bad boy up on Russian Wikipedia and over there it has fantastic article usage - have a look for yourself. Fully labelled in beautiful detail in its own section, with links directly off the image to related articles; great! I would definitely support that. Here though, it's simply been dumped down the arse-end of the related article, and that I can't support for a B&W line diagram. Sorry. Give me that Russian style EV and I'll happily change to support. -- jjron ( talk) 15:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)- Support new usage, as long as it sticks. Unfortunately someone has
already halved the size and IMO reduced the EV. I was going to revert, but perhaps worth taking to the article talkpage? --
jjron (
talk)
13:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll ask on the talk page. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support new usage, as long as it sticks. Unfortunately someone has
already halved the size and IMO reduced the EV. I was going to revert, but perhaps worth taking to the article talkpage? --
jjron (
talk)
13:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Opposeper jjron - the usage in that Russian Wikipedia article section is superb, the usage in the English one is... not. Nik the stoned 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support per updated usage. One point though, I'm pretty sure Protivoblikovochny shield is a mistranslation! Nik the stoned 10:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added the schematics like in the Russian wikipedia. If it stays... well, that's up to MilHist. Opposing voters, feedback please. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support per above. Aaadddaaammm ( talk) 08:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support As description added.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 09:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong supportgreat diagram(!), and potentially useful as I may be working on Sukhoi Su-25 in the near future. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 06:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've noted a lot of similarities between the diagram and that on pages 218–219 from the book Modern Battlefield Warplanes. The one in the book has colours and weapons, but there are detailed similarities between the two. -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support per above -- Extra 999 ( Contact me) 08:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support This is a professional-standard cutaway diagram with significant EV Nick-D ( talk) 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Sukhoi Su-25 kompo vers2.svg -- Papa Lima Whiskey 2 ( talk) 08:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since Sp33dyphil asked for particular comment: As Nick-D's earlier comment hints, it's unlikely to be a straight scan, especially in SVG format, and it would be difficult to create a free derivative such as this and not have it look similar to a textbook version that is trying to do the same thing, with the same model of airplane. So with Altoing citing a different source here than the one Sp33dyphil claims, and with Commons having happily promoted this to FP (plus long-term history of contributions from Altoing), in the absence of further evidence that this was a closer kind of reproduction than we're allowed, I consider the point solved. Let us know if anything new surfaces. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 ( talk) 09:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
