Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bank of China Tower massing model.svg

File:Bank of China Tower massing model.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2022 at 16:29:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bank of China Tower massing model.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bank of China Tower massing model.svg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
•  Info created and uploaded by Cmglee - nominated by -- Benh (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Not the most eye catchy, but very clean and made very clear to me the principles behind the tower design. I think all diagrams should be like this. -- Benh (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Info Why 1x, 2x, 3x and then 5x, skipping 4x? I think because of en:Tetraphobia - Benh (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  It might just be for aesthetic reasons. In any case, I'm inclined to  Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Good diagram, but why would it merit a feature? I'm inclined to oppose on the basis that it's not interesting enough to feature (imagine this as Picture of the Day!) but would be a very good VI, but talk to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Because it really improves the en:Bank_of_China_Tower_(Hong_Kong) article and help understanding why the tower looks the way it does. It's not outstanding, but at least clean and flawless. And that's really what diagrams should be IMO. It can also make one reading the associated article when put in a front page of Commons (though this is more an en:FP thing). Finally beauty is sometimes in the simplicity :) - Benh (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, but this is a little too simple to feature, I think. I'll sleep on it, though, and decide tomorrow. Thanks for giving me your take. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks to everyone for your support. If there's anything I can do to improve it (or make it less simple, e.g. texture or drop shadow), please let me know. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  If it's not considered suitable here, I'd try it on en:WP:FPC, which has much more of an encyclopedic value consideration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I said it's flawless... so... but since u propose, maybe a bit more room between each step. And yes, if it fails here, you may want to nominate on en:FPC. That diagram is worth being promoted somewhere. - Benh (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Benh Many thanks for your compliment! cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose It's a good diagram, but looks too simple to be an FP IMO. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose for the moment. I think "too simple" does not quite hit the point there. Having an appropriate level of abstraction is an important trait of a good illustration, and I think this one is almost 100% spot-on in that regard. It would make a great VI, but it is not flawless. 1) Conceptually: The whole nX thing only becomes clear after reading the description and looking at a picture like File:Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong.jpg. And even afterwards, I don't quite understand how this would be relevant for what's being shown here. 2) Visually/aesthetically: I don't want to go into too much detail here*, but in essence, the balance between thickness of outlines, fonts size, size and visual weight of operators and spacing between elements and sub panels is off. It feels crammed, and the labels, pluses and arrows are a tad too dominant. The chosen colors remind me of 1990's Excel defaults for diagrams, which were easy to distinguish but not particularly pleasing to the eye, to say it mildly. The shading successfully delivers a 3D feeling, but I've got the feeling that reserving the brightest/punchiest colors for the small triangles on top may not help with visual attractiveness. --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC) *Sorry, can't help it: One problem is that the pyramid in the second panel from the right is poking out of the whole arrangement in a way that is not balanced with what the nX are doing. That could be counter-balanced by moving the nX further up, but then you increase the white space between them and the drawing below. Balance that by moving the panels further apart (too tight anyway), keep adjusting until everything falls into place. Alternatively, putting the nX below the towers, maybe even removing them completely, might work better. Sorry again, I'll shut up now.

  @El Grafo Many thanks for the constructive feedback. I appreciate your detailed roadmap to act on. Happy to learn more about graphic design. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Just some ideas that may or may not work ... El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose per above, but please nominate to COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan. Tight crops on side, and it's really hard to understand just from the image what this is intending to demonstrate. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)