Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2018 at 23:11:47 (UTC)
Reason
The previous delist nom had issues, mainly with handling color breaks between lines. This version does not have that issue. The file size is over 10 times smaller, and the file format is SVG (preferred by many).
Comment I think there's a lot to like about your new version, but could you have a look at the shadow? It's a little odd. I mean, I know it's stylised, but it seems to have a slightly odd double-light-source look. The shadow is more subtly done in the PNG, which adds something to the illusion, as it's easy to almost not notice the shadow when looking over the two squares. The larger letters are a nice touch. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.8% of all
FPs00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I see what you mean, and I completely agree. I've fixed the light-source issue and blended the shadow a bit better. Granted, it's not identical to the png. Of course, if wikipedia could render Gaussian blurs properly, I'd be much easier to match. If you believe the subltleness of the shadows is still an issue, I can spend more time adjusting them.
Pbroks13 (
talk)
04:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Question: The proposed image is not yet in any article - does it have to be, before it even can be nominated? If not, then I support replacing. --
Janke |
Talk10:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Actually, yes, it is in this case. I forgot to convert the "A" and "B" from text to path, which could cause rendering issues. Nonetheless, the problems are fixed, and now does pass the validator.
Pbroks13 (
talk)
04:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2018 at 23:11:47 (UTC)
Reason
The previous delist nom had issues, mainly with handling color breaks between lines. This version does not have that issue. The file size is over 10 times smaller, and the file format is SVG (preferred by many).
Comment I think there's a lot to like about your new version, but could you have a look at the shadow? It's a little odd. I mean, I know it's stylised, but it seems to have a slightly odd double-light-source look. The shadow is more subtly done in the PNG, which adds something to the illusion, as it's easy to almost not notice the shadow when looking over the two squares. The larger letters are a nice touch. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.8% of all
FPs00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I see what you mean, and I completely agree. I've fixed the light-source issue and blended the shadow a bit better. Granted, it's not identical to the png. Of course, if wikipedia could render Gaussian blurs properly, I'd be much easier to match. If you believe the subltleness of the shadows is still an issue, I can spend more time adjusting them.
Pbroks13 (
talk)
04:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Question: The proposed image is not yet in any article - does it have to be, before it even can be nominated? If not, then I support replacing. --
Janke |
Talk10:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Actually, yes, it is in this case. I forgot to convert the "A" and "B" from text to path, which could cause rendering issues. Nonetheless, the problems are fixed, and now does pass the validator.
Pbroks13 (
talk)
04:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)reply