Review
(criteria) |
 Support Although it is not the best illustration for the Doppler theory, it is very good for showing the interference, the result of the Doppler effect. This proves how difficult category and scope selection can be. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- One source, no interference. Only crests and troughs of the same single wave. --Eusebius (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong, Doppler= relative speeds (2) - but I will not discuss that here. (speed on the left side = medium speed + object speed, on the right side = medium speed - object speed) --Foroa (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
* Oppose Comment Beautiful image and nice work, but I think this one is more self-explanatory. Setting up a MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 Done MVR available here. --Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose None of them is good enough to honour the saying: "a picture is worth 1000 thousand word". In bothncases, we must know what Doppler effect is to understand the picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the description on the image page is part of the value of a VI candidate. --Eusebius (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It shows that with a moving object, the frequency of whatever the waves (sound, light, ect) are higher in front of the object and lower behind the object. Is the problem that it doesn't show clearly enough that it is a moving object? Pbroks13 (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support This one seems better. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Scores:
1. Doppler effect.svg: +1 <--
2. Doppler effect diagrammatic.svg: 0
=>
Image:Doppler effect.svg: Promoted. <--
Image:Doppler effect diagrammatic.svg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
|
