File talk:MSJ.en.svg

Possible problems with text elements

The text elements in this SVG image are actual text, not paths. This may cause problems in some browsers or operating systems. I recently edited the file with Inkscape 0.46 running in Ubuntu 8.10 and saw no problems viewing the image in that operating system, but there is no guarantee that it will work properly in all operating systems. If there are complaints, the text elements will need to be broken down into non-text paths so that all can see the image as it was intended.Quicksilver^@ 03:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

It is okay that this is original research ("my own work....")?

Link

The link does not seem to link to that particular graphic as of 10/11/10.

Language

It's totally understandable that Spanish-sources would be useful, but as the link is to a Spanish page and there are both English and Spanish Wikipedias.... what's the rule? Is it okay to cite foreign language sources?

 

Factually incorrect?

The supposed source for this image, from La Tercera, says that the first collapse occured at level 325 and the second at level 268: the image has them at levels 700 and 500 respectively! This slideshow from the Chilean Ministry of Mines appears to roughly agree with La Tercera. The image appears to be so factually incorrect as to be encyclopedically useless, and I'm removing it from articles on enwiki until the question is resolved. Physchim62 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a very useful graphic and helps to explain to the reader what happened. We will really miss not having this image in our 2010 Copiapó mining accident article on english wiki. Is it possible for someone to edit this file and "fix" it? Can I fix it with GIMP? Cheers, Veriss1 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an SVG, so you're better off with Inkscape than GIMP. If I could alter the image myself with my (low-level) image skills, I would do, but I can't so I'm raising the issue to see if there's anyone out there who can ;) Physchim62 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As I draw it I didn't want to show a proportional image of the mine. For example the tunnel in no way reproduce the mine as shown in the PDF (I get a pdf not a slideshow) Moreover, how do you mean 325 and 268? from top or from bottom of the mine? --Createaccount 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Differences in how the depth of a mine is expressed has been a problem with the mainstream press. The US (and I believe the UK) media have been referring to meters/feet below ground level while Chilean sources have been referring to meters above sea level. I appreciate that you came back to help us. Veriss1 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I get 325 and 268 above mean sea level, which is the scale used on the side of the diagram and also in the two Chilean sources. Physchim62 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We are looking forward to seeing an updated file. I hope that it's not difficult to adjust. Veriss1 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, if not, feel free to revert me. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks great Diego. I already put it back in the article. Thanks as always. Veriss1 (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Updates look nice Hydrargyrum, tyvm. Veriss1 (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)