Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop

Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop

[[:|WP:GL
WP:GRAPHLAB]]

The Graphics Lab helps improve all graphical content used by Wikimedia projects stored on the Wikimedia Commons.

The work to improve the quality and clarity of images that are proposed to them by the community. This work most often involves extracting key elements from photos, removing distracting elements, and improving the general appearance of images. Creation of drawings, diagrams and maps is also within the scope of this project if the requests are clear and the work is feasible (less than one hour).

This page is now ready to go and is awaiting your requests!. You can help by joining this project, and by requesting image improvement.
Now it's up to the English community to use this Graphics lab.

Users can request images improvement or creation of images by following the "Request Form" below, adding their request to the bottom of this page. Graphists will look at the request, and improve the image if it's useful to Wikipedia.

Request Form Format:

== Title ==
<center><gallery>
''Name of image'' (e.g. Image:Eutrophication.jpg)
</gallery></center>

'''Article(s):'''

'''Request:''' ~~~~

'''Graphist opinion:'''

Graphics Lab Archive (all pre-October 2009, before the three current Workshops existed) v t e
	Completed requests from the former workshops (Images to improve & Image workshop) were archived regularly: 2006 2007 2008 2009

Progression of Dental caries

Possible tooth picture; annoying color
Possible tooth picture; but less anatomically correct
Recoloured SVG

pit and fissure caries

smooth surface caries

Article(s): Dental caries

Request: This is a involved request. I would understand if some people would want to break up the work. Basically, this idea came from a series of pictures on dental caries (tooth decay) in the french wikipedia. The series of pictures showed the progression of caries. I think it would be absolutely amazing change the series of pictures into an animated gif AND have the images be more accurate with what actually happens in a tooth. I have posted two pictures of a tooth that might be preferred to be cropped to focus on a single area. I am not sure which would be better. The first one looks more anatomically correct, but the colors are really distracting. The second one is less anatomically correct, but there is less color. Because of the anatomy, I would prefer the first picture if the colors can be more neutral and if the picture could be cropped to focus on the crown of the tooth.

In addition, I have posted my absolutely terrible sketches to show what the progression should look like. For anyone who would be willing to help with this project, I will try to explain what is going on in the pictures and of course feel free to ask any questions if I am not clear:

There are two types of caries. I figured each type could have its own animation.

Pit and fissure caries (the first shown) is described as looking like two triangles sharing the same base. It begins as a point in a pit/fissure, gets larger as it goes down to the dentin. Then, at the location where enamel and dentin meet, the decay spreads laterally rapidly. Then, as it moves toward the pulp, the caries in dentin sharpens into a point.

Smooth surface caries (the second series shown) is described as looking like two triangles, with an apex of one triangle touching the base of the other. It begins as a large area in enamel and shrinks to a point as it nears the location where enamel and dentin meet. Once the decay reaches dentin, it again spreads laterally rapidly and sharpens into a point again as it moves toward the pulp.

I realize this may be a lot to do, but I would very much appreciate it! And the article would appreciate it too!!!! - Dozenist talk 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

Image:DentistryLogo.png

I've created an SVG of the image, with a more realistic colour scheme. The dentine and pulp out towards are faded out towards the bottom which IMO looks better than simply cropping it to the top. Would using the same image (without the fading out) be acceptable for the animations? Time3000 14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The colors look a ton better! The caries will be much easier to identify in the animation that way. For that purpose, you may want to consider lightening the dentin color just slightly, but if you feel that the color is not too dark then do not bother with it. - Dozenist talk 14:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I am working on the animations... Time3000 11:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! That's awesome. - Dozenist talk 13:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pit and fissure caries animation

OK, I've done an animation of pit and fissure caries. It's fairly basic, but it's fairly accurate (as far as I can tell). Time3000 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The animation is awesome! It would fit in the article perfectly. I am sure the other animation will be just as good. - Dozenist talk 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photoclinometry

Article(s): Photoclinometry

Request: If someone could make an image (probably not SVG, I don't know) that depicts the process or result of photoclinometry. It would be much appreciated. → Icez {talk | contrib} 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist Opinion

If you wrote what that was, maybe you would get more offers Rugby471 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Virginia Tech Massacre

Original photo by Damiano
lightened and despeckled
less extreme edit
adjusted for clarity by Xiaphias

Article(s): Virginia Tech Massacre

Request: This photo was taken from a student's cell phone and he released it under the GFDL. Is there any cleanup / color improvement that can be done? Thanks. BigDT (416) 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

Does someone have a denoise tool they can run on this? --Interiot 05:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best using Photoshop CS2's noise reduction tools and a little bit of color correction/levels adjustment.-Andrew c 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brightened the foreground, increased contrast, tweaked the color, and slightly sharpened. If anyone else can do more, feel free to modify it further.--Xiaphias 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dual unit map

Article(s):Virginia Tech Massacre

Request: The map image (Image:Norris WestAJ Map.jpg) has a scale in metric only, would it be possible to add an imperial/US customary scale alongside? The Manual of Style reads conversions should generally be included and not be removed. Thanks CR7 16:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Graphist opinion:

I've re-done the scale with additional measurements in yards, but preserving the transparency was too difficult so I've simply put it onto a grey background. Time3000 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've swapped the pictures on the page. Thanks, CR7 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Would it be possible to put the post office in the picture, to show the distance he had to travel? Just a suggestion. --wpktsfs 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coral life cycles.png

Article(s): Coral

Request: Found in Category:Images for redraw -YK Times^talk 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:I redid into SVG but the Wiki PNG rendering is awkward to say the least. I don't have any of the fonts that the backend has so it's a matter of trial and error at positioning due to the fonts changing sizes.Undeuxtroiskid 08:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid that kind of problems you can convert text to normal objects (pathsin inkscape), although in that way you will lose some of the benefits of text in svg (such as ability of finding strings in svg files :( ). Chabacano 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find the fonts that I needed. Apparently, they were bundled with Inkscape and I didn't even know it. I was aware of converting text to normal objects but that way, it'd be a lot harder to edit it with a text editor (does any even do that?). Then again, the lines are not easily editable so...both ways have it's advantages. I didn't set a background for the SVG either (I always forget) so it's transparent.Undeuxtroiskid 04:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on this, I listed it for conversion after a note in GA review and only just found this page. I had a go at making this and uploaded it to the commmons: commons:Image:Coral life cycles.svg
(It has the same name as above so can't see how to place it in the gallery)
The text on mine only works in full view, as you can see in the summary it is the wrong size. Why is this and how can I change it?
Thanks |→ Spaully^₪† 12:02, 13 May 2007 (GMT)

The Wikipedia French Embassy logo....

This image
First Edit

First Edit

Article(s): Wikipedia:Local_Embassy/Français

Request: I have a complicated request to ask you. Would it be possible to:

Change the lettering on the globe so that instead it would spell out Francophonie?
Change the colouring scheme of the globe so that the colours used are the same to that of the ring around it?
(Just remembered) Could you also change the image to such point that it would no longer be eligible for Copyright by Wikimedia - (but still preserve the fundamental Wikipedia Globe idea?)

Thanks,

Booksworm Talk to me! 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC) (Please place any queries to my talk page as well as leaving them here...) (You may note that I did this logo quite quickly using Fireworks...)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

Do you mean the greek letters for franco ... or the actual english characters ? Rugby471 17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that if you could write Francophonie using normal Latin characters... Booksworm Talk to me! 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall get to work on it ! I have done the first version of it ( no color scheme yet, but I have done the letters. For some reason, they don't look just right, can someone else have a look at the them ? Rugby471 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done the color scheme, does it look okay ? Rugby471 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose so... Could you, however colour individual tiles on the globe or is that exorbitantly complicated? I also think that the letters are mucked up for some reason - they don't wrap on the globe - can you do that as well or would that be too difficult as well as colouring individual tiles??? Booksworm Talk to me! 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start work on that, but I can't think it will look that good... Rugby471 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm half way through the way you suggested, but I don't think it looks that good .. Should I continue ? Rugby471 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, scrap the coloured title idea. Just go ahead with the idea of placing "FRANCOPHONIE" on the globe. Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 05:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original image has some serious copyright issues, and I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. I do personally think the Wikimedia Foundation should just release its logos under a free license (though still subject to trademarks, of course), but until they grow some spine and do that, we can't just make them free by insisting that they are so. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Title

Blue skies, smilin' at ya. ~by Xiaphias~

Article(s): Oasis, Ica (city) Request:

Hi, I wonder if you could make the sky light blue, thanks --Andersmusician $ 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

magic wand + adjust color balance = insta-bluesky. --Xiaphias 03:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.o ... Nice work here, really more appealing ! When you do such good work it is better to upload with the same name, on the old image. Yug (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks a little strange with the reflection not being also blue-ish. Sancho 17:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With such drastic changes, though, there's an argument for using a different name so that the unedited version will still be available under the old name. It depends on the circumstances, really. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done iPod 4G

Not a bad pic to start with, other than the screen. Oh well…
Could you make it look something like this?
Finished Image #1
Finished Image #2

Article(s): iPod

Request: Hi! I'd like to get the background from the above image removed and replaced with solid white, and a drop shadow added (or keep the one it has). Feel free to mess with the contrast levels, etc. It's going to be used as a thumbnail here, and it really is our best image of the subject as far as editing possibilities go. When you're done, maybe you could upload it to the Commons? Thanks! Here T oHelp 23:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

That sounds okay, i'll get to work on it right away ! > Rugby471 ^talk 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i think i've done it. how does it look ? ( i'll convert to jpg afterwards ) > Rugby471 ^talk 15:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a brightness/levels adjustment (excluding the screen, probably) to make it look white instead of gray against the new white background; I had to make a pretty severe adjustment to the 5G image when I removed the background from that. Other than that, not bad at all! —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it look white. The only thing left to do is the screen, the thing is, the screen is really bad quality, it is hard to do anything with it, could you take another picture but make sure the screen looks better ? > Rugby471 ^talk 07:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That looks great—except, as noted, the screen. There's also Image:Ipodphoto.jpg to work with if it helps, but I don't think it will. Not only is the coloring off but the screen is also blurry, not to mention different from the one in the pic you've been working on. While it will look fine as a 45px thumbnail, the screen will have to be improved to be shown at full size. Also, since space is limited, especially in a thumbnail, can you make the next version a tighter crop? Not too tight, but it looks to me like there's to much white border, especially on the top.--Here T oHelp 12:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped the image a bit so it fits in the table a bit better... Paul^C/_T+ 13:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the crop, I made the image larger so the shadow wouldn't get cut off at any point, but I forgot to crop it back. Now about the screen, what do you actually want me to do with it, should I try to find an alternative from a free picture, or try to work with the one I have ? > Rugby471 ^talk 08:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I don't know exactly what I'm doing here, but I'm the one who took the picture. I took more here, if they help any: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPodPhoto4Gscreen.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPodPhoto4Gsmall.jpg Try those and let me know on my talk page if you need more. My camera isn't very good :/ AquaStreak 15:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Also, I took this one. I think this is as clear as it will go. /media/wikipedia/en/d/d5/IPodPhoto4Gclear.jpg AquaStreak 16:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerz for those pics Aquastreak, I have pasted in the two screens (and sharpened them etc.) and made small changes to the rest of the iPod. Since there were two usable screens, I didn't know which one you'd prefer. Here is the version [1] of the screen, and here is version [2] of the screen. Which one do you prefer ? ( I prefer version 1 ) > Rugby471 ^talk 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the 1st version better. AquaStreak 13:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They both look okay (and much better than the original), but I guess I like version 1, too. Thanks everyone!--Here T oHelp 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the morning, i'll upload both to commons ! > Rugby471 ^talk 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ! The two images are here and here I want to thank everyone for their commitment to this ! > Rugby471 ^talk 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Here T oHelp 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Image:SwansCygnus olor.jpg

Article(s): Too many to list. See [3]

Request: This has been nominated for featured picture status at least times, for the obvious reasons. And four times, it's failed, for the obvious reasons. Is there anything that can be done to reduce the glare, just a little? Especially above the left head, and on the right? Ben Aveling 12:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Working on it Javit 19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and adjustments. Is that ok? Javit 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has it lost resolution? Chabacano 00:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you need that high resolution? All the links where the photo was used contained it as fairly small size. I have hi-rez if you need but didn't see the need to clutter servers with waste bytes. Javit 01:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an FPC, then the high resolution is important. From Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria:

         Images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported,
         unless they are of historical significance or animated; even larger sizes are
         generally preferred.

Time3000 09:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i'll upload a hi-rez this evening (UK time). Javit 11:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, how's this ? --Javit 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. We'll find out what other people think - I've uploaded it to commons, and I'm about to nominate it. They are pretty tough there, so wish me luck. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:SwansCygnus olor edit2.jpg‎. In general, people like it, but want it to be have more detail. As I said, tough crowd. If a higher-res version can be generated, it might help. They like their featured pictures to be suitable for printing. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the largest possible from the original. --Javit 09:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Denmark

Danish coat of arms, 1819-1903
Three lions COA in SVG.

Three lions COA in SVG.

Article(s): Coat of arms of Denmark

Request: This image shows a version of the Danish arms used for almost 100 years, making it one of the most important variants. The original work of art was located in a dimly lit place, and this is the reason why a flash was used. The resulting image would benefit from a little sharpening, see the shield and the gold pattern on the royal robe. Any help would be great. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Is there a vector version? If so, i can be used for reference. If not, it might be worth it to create one if possible.--Here T oHelp 17:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, we don't have a vector version, but it would be extremely welcome. If you take a look at coat of arms of Denmark, you can see that the actual design of the insignia changed a lot over the years, I've - so far - only added images for the first 400 years, but it gets way worse after that. The version shown here was used 1819-1903, so it was a very stable version. It is almost identical to the version used 1903-1947, only one field was changed then (the red field on the SW corner was replaced with a new insignia occupying the same space). And the later 1947-72 version, also resembled much of it: see the bottom of this page (the artist hasn't been dead for 70 years, which is why I haven't uploaded it). The changes in 1903 and 1947 related to the same field representing Iceland. A user attempted to create an svg of the "three-lion" arms, see Image:COA of Denmark.svg but this image has the crown's proportions wrong, the lions look odd, and the hearts are too small and the centre ones are incorrectly placed. If anybody could draw vectors looking something like this state version and the royal arms I'd be extremely happy. Even more so as some editors are considering deleting all images from www.vector-images, so that might kill the two images in question. If anybody tries making one of these images, place ask me if you have any questions at all. I know the details by heart :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it changed gradually over time, it sounds like an animated version might be useful? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An animated version might be an idea, but it would require much more material since the Danish arms dates back to the 12th century but standardization only came by 1819. The Danish arms started with containing just the three-lions symbol and ended up with a large number of different insignias arranged in different orders and styles. As provinces were lost and gained, subcoats were frequently added and removed again. Variation also happened during the reign of individual kings: one year a king's coins would show just the three lions and nine hearts, another year it could be 10 different subcoats arranged in a great shield but arranged in yet a new order, or it might be c. 10 tiny shields surrounding one bigger one. Next year again, it could be back to the symbol the government adminstration often used with just a combination of the arms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden/the Kalmar Union. Usage also shifted depending on the physical size of the coins it was shown or physical features in a building. E.g. in Rosenborg Castle, the ceiling of one chamber features around 12 small shields, nicely arranged in columns and rows as part of the ceiling's decoration. I would be very happy if something could just be done with this image here, or the two suggested vectors. One reason why the vectors would be nice is that I hope to one day bring this article to GA and FA and in that case, I would like to avoid any issues about copyrights. Other Danish Wikipedians have promised to help me with user-taken photos of relevant insignia from the later periods, but it is a big drawback that PD-art doesn't apply in Denmark. Americans have no idea how lucky you are to have PD-art, PD-USGov and similar laws. Danes have none of them. Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a new vectorization of the three lions COA. I hope this is better than the previous attempt. Chabacano 14:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much prettier, and both the crown of King Christian V and the colours are spot on. I just realised now that my post was a little unclear, for which I apologize. A common version used officially would be this (linked to only due to copyright reasons) or one of the official drawings shown here (most notably examples R1 and R2). The image I linked to before was from Vector-images.com so that one was of course derived from the official arms. Your vectorization resembles both the official examples R1 and R2 and the .png from vector-images.com, so I would consider it close to the official version, but still just a tad different. Given this, I believe we can still call this a new work, although it is very close to Vector-images' version. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of have understood your comment. If your concern is about copyright I would say that this new vectorization is as free as the vector-images.com . Since the png is in commons and has a free license, we can vectorize it or make derivative works. Another question is if vector-images.com are violating the laws of Denmark (and then we are too :( ) by distributing its image. Chabacano 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed thinking in terms of Vector-images.com, since Commons has stopped accepting uploads of vector-images material, since some admins on Commons believe that the company would prefer not seeing derived works. On the other hand, AFAIK, the company's emails have been very large, provided we don't upload the exact vector files, the company sells itself, but this is not the case here. I can't see any problems in respect of the Danish state. The Kingdom of Denmark limits itself to a shortlist of official drawings - generally made by Mr. Aage Wulff, official artist to the court, and http://www.sa.dk/sa/rigsvaaben/eksempler.htm states expressly that should any state body wish to use a drawing for official purposes that differs from the ones on this list, that state body would then have to apply the National Archives for permission in order to do a new official drawing. The purpose is clearly to avoid a proliferation of "official" drawings, and your drawing isn't an exact match to any of the official ones. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenrec

Can anybody help me to improve my photo of tenrec (Lesser Hedgehog Tenrec - Echinops telfairi)? If thats possible?

Article(s): no article yet

Request: Pinky sl 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Hiya. I think the photo is fairly blurred and not very well composed for content. Yet there is room for improvement post-processing, but probably not worth it unless you demonstrate that the photograph would be a useful addition to a linked article. Thanks! --Javit 17:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms of Bermuda

Flag of Bermuda
Coat of Arms of Bermuda

Coat of Arms of Bermuda
Flag of the Governor of Bermuda

Article(s): Bermuda, among others

Request: To be honest, with all of the high-quality flags and coats of arms out there on Wikipedia, I was shocked to see this representation of the Bermudan coat of arms. Frankly, it looks as if it was done in MS Paint, or at least the lion part. The sad fact is, though, most of the images out on the internet are also of pretty poor quality. There are a few that I found that may come in handy, though:

This PDF file comes straight from the Bermudan government website. The coat of arms has rather thick outlining and it's in black and white, but, in theory, it should be the most faithful representation as it comes from the government. It's really the best thing I could find, as there isn't a specific section of the website devoted to the Bermudan flag or coat of arms (the tourism site has a low-quality photo to illustrate its description of the flag).
Probably the next best thing can be found here, from vexilla-mundi.com. The lion's head is a tad different and whatever part of the lion between the hands and feet that stick out from behind the shield look like something out of a Dr. Seuss book. But compared to others out there, it's not bad.

As far as I searched, the rest were pretty much the same as (if not worse than) the existing image or were too low-quality for them to be usable (I'm referring mainly to photos). I really hope we can improve this because if someone were to recreate my country's flag like this, I'd be pretty peeved. -Nameneko 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

Done Fujita scale

Image for Improvement
Version 3# Improvement

Article(s): Fujita scale

Request: This image explains the technical details of the Fujita scale pretty well, but it suffers from severe quality issues. Cleanup/vectorization would be nice. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

Okay, i'll get to work on creating a vector > Rugby471 ^talk 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i've redrawn it all, how does it look. BTW, I changed the colour coding, as the values on the left and right axis were hard to distinguish from the MACH values. > Rugby471 ^talk 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the tick marks on the lower horizontal scales don't match up. B11 is equal to F0, B12 to F1, M0 is F11, and M1 is equivalent to F12. Also, the round marks on the Mach scale are missing. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of other factual problems as well... the PNG says "speed of sound at -3 C", the SVG says "speed of sound at 3 C", and the equations at the top are missing the "1.5" exponents (maybe they just didn't render properly in rsvg?). And the third equation is missing its last "t". On an aesthetic basis, there's a stray "F9.0" above the 500 on the far left side. If others could do some blink comparison of the two images to make sure there aren't other minor factual issues, that'd be good. (eg. pull them up in two tabs and rapidly switch between them) --Interiot 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, when you are working up close with both images, it is hard to see those details.However some of them, i admit, I forgot to put there. I have corrected all the points you said and also looked for any other errors, I couldn't find any more. Is this version okay ? ( I put an opaque background as I wasn't sure whether you wanted transparent or white ) > Rugby471 ^talk 07:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opaque is fine. Looking at it closely, the distance between F10-F11 and F11-F12 is not the same; also M0-M1 and M1-M2 are not equidistant either. (Yes, I'm a PITA, I know.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done as much as I can do without breaking down mentally, is it okay .... > Rugby471 ^talk 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. The only thing I would change (and that would be a change from the original as well) would be to add a space in '900mph', and that may not be necessary. But otherwise, it is a great job. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done !! > Rugby471 ^talk 08:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! --Interiot 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]