Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status.
 Scope changed from Category:Electrical measurement instruments, Category:Galvanometers to Visualisation of electrical measurement instrument Dr. Schorsch (talk)
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Oppose The scope still does not work out. An electrical measurement instrument could be a lot of different things. This is a galvanometer. -- Hk kng 12:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Question I am not sure about the language, here: is a electrical measurement instrument an instrument measuring one or the other electrical property or a an instrument that uses electricity to measure an arbitrary property? In both cases other meters would be included. -- Hk kng 12:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is for sure a very valuable illustration, but I tend to agree on the concerns on the scope. How about changing it to Moving coil galvanometer, because that is what it is. The scope does not have to exactly match the wording in an existing Commons gallery or category. Soryy for all the scope fuzz...-- Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you can see I am very open minded to scope changes ;-) For me "scope" was a bit unclear defined, but I will try to make this better. Obviously I had not understood the renomination process, sorry for confusion about this. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from Visualisation of electrical measurement instrument to Visualisation of moving coil galvanometer Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
 Neutral I have thought long about it, but I cannot find this image to pass all the criteria, although none of the concerns is serious enough to merit a negativ vote:
- criterium 3: distracting elements. The lower part shows the coil superimposed in two positions. Since these two are not clearly distincted, a viewer needs to closely read the description to find out the object is not a crossed coils instrument. On the other hand, the description is there and appropriate.
- I'd just like to highlight a recent supplementary elaboration to criterion 3 as it may be unknown by some reviewers: "...it is not a valid ground of opposition that it would be easy to create a better one. A VI is the best available image of its type on Commons, not the best that can be conceived of.". -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- criterium 4: verfiability. Criteria state that for user-created illustration this is mandatory. I understand that for a demonstration of a principle, this is not easy to do, but (in my opinion) a reference to the accordant Wikipedia article is not enough.
- criterium 1: most valuable. There are a number of illustrations in the category that show different details of the instrument better, but most of them would neither pass an overall comparison, nor be elligable in and off themselves. Image:D'Arsonval ammeter movement.jpg is not only the closest in subject, it also is the hardest competition. It does not use numbered parts, but has a well-written and detailed description. The source is at the same time appropriate to make it verifiable - the only illustation that is. On the other hand, the nominated picture shows and describes an additional part, the dial.
- -- Hk kng (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I am torn on this one. The only criterion I have a problem with is no. 1, whether it is the most valubale illustration within the scope. For sure it is the most visually appealing illustration of a moving coil instrument I can find on Commons, which illustrates well the mechanics of the device, that a coil can rotate within a magnetic field. However, it does not illustrate well why it actually works. It is the interplay between the magnetic fields of the permanent magnet and the closed loop current which exerts a electromagnetic torque proportional to the current on the coil which is counterbalanced by a spring torque which according to Hooke's law gives a linear relationship between the current and the meter movement. There are other images which tries to illustrate the physics of the galvanometer, like Image:Galvanometer diagram.png and Image:Galvanometer scheme.png but these are not as visually appealing as this one. So my vote is indecisive. If this image were added magnetic field lines due to the permanent magnet and current flow lines in the rotating coil, I would support. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are pointing on an important issue: Unlike the badly chosen title of the image states, it does not show the principle, but rather the details of the technical implementation. I was not aware of this before and did update the image's description. Anyway, the scope does not claim to be the most valuable illustration of the principle but just of the (technical) object -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ideally, it should demonstrate both how it is constructed and how it works. This image is the best at showing the construction/design but there are better illustrations of how it works. Thus my neutral stance. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Only neUtral votes =>
Undecided. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
