Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lego dimensions

Lego dimensions

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 08:18:15 (UTC)

Reason: Good image quality. Has EV
Articles in which this image appears: Lego
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator: Cmglee

Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 08:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issue: The measurement from centre of one nib to the other nib (P=8 mm) runs afoul of the perspective, with the line meant to point to the right nib blending into the side of the yellow lego. The 3.0 mm label just below it also appears very slightly off. Perspective is rather forced, but that's probably to the image's advantage, so let's let that pass. I realise this is a tiny bit nitpicky, but, after all, the point of SVGs is that they can be tweaked easily. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few small issues with these. I think some of this "P" and "h" stuff is confusing, and even when you look carefully at what each represents, it's not clear how they're linked. Why does the difference between the centres (P) relate to the width of the brick (lower right) or height of the brick?

Also, I think the choice of bricks is also confusing. The red one is "thin" in the context of Lego, but it's only because I have a working knowledge of Lego I wasn't tempted to assume the red one was normal height and the yellow one tall. The truly typical Lego brick is either two-by-two, yellow thickness, or four-by-two, yellow thickness. I think trying to do everything in one picture makes it a bit confusing to a casual reader - this is Lego we're talking about! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: While very interesting, the equations and P and h information clutters up the diagram and makes it difficult to follow. Spencer^T♦C 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Interesting yes, but the defects of this diagram are not minor 'issues' at all. It's a confused representation of a simple modular relationship. H = 1.2 x P is not actually relevant, it doesn't have any effect on the basic ways that Lego bricks can be assembled. It's far too difficult to work out from this that the spacing between bricks is 0.2mm. The basic brick is the 2 x 4 stud and as the only diagram in the article that ought to be the starting point. Graphically this has a fatal flaw (not nitpicking at all but absolutely basic): there is no reason this has to be an isometric, so choose an view that enables the distance between studs to be dimensioned without ambiguity. The dimensioning is clumsy and crowded: give the dimension lines more space, scale the arrows to suit the smallest dimension, position the text consistently and especially make sure it never touches the dimension lines. ProfDEH (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This looks like a very competent 3D drawing so it shouldn't be difficult to change the viewpoint and indeed to show a larger brick as well. It's not perspective, this is an isometric drawing which is absolutely normal for this kind of diagram, but it does set up a conflict with the dimension lines. A different projection would resolve that. Incidentally, the other images on the article are surprisingly poor, a challenge for any Lego enthusiasts out there? ProfDEH (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the "LEGO" logo at the correct angle as depicted in this perspective? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ProfDEH (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]