Original - Diagram depicting the different stages of a Minuteman III missile path from launch to detonation, as well as the different basic stages of the missile themselves. 1. The missile launches out of its silo by firing its 1st stage boost motor (A). 2. About 60 seconds after launch, the 1st stage drops off and the 2nd stage motor (B) ignites. The missile shroud is ejected. 3. About 120 seconds after launch, the 3rd stage motor (C) ignites and separates from the 2nd stage. 4. About 180 seconds after launch, 3rd stage thrust terminates and the Post-Boost Vehicle (D) separates from the rocket. 5. The Post-Boost Vehicle maneuvers itself and prepares for re-entry vehicle (RV) deployment. 6. The RVs, as well as decoys and chaff, are deployed during backaway. 7. The RVs and chaff re-enter the atmosphere at high speeds and are armed in flight. 8. The nuclear warheads detonate, either as air bursts or ground bursts.
Reason
Informative diagram that explains how an ICBM with MIRVs works, covering the sequence from launch to arrival and detonation over a target. High encyclopedic value.
Neutral This is a fine diagram, but it seems pretty cartoonish to be a FP. That said, I don't see how it could NOT be cartoonish. I'm willing to agree that this image has a good deal of EV. Thus I find myself neutral on this nomination - so far. Question: would this be better as a jpeg? Spiral5800 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. SVG is good because it is resizable (think large posters for example). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe my concerns from the original nomination have been addressed. Other than that, unless someone with more expertise knows better, I think it illustrates the subject well. --jjron (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is a fine diagram and illustrates well the subject. Still it lacks sophistication to reach FP level. Yes, it could be a lot less cartoonish. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It can use some more effects (gradients, blurring, strokings, etc.) ZooFari 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, The atmosphere should fade into black, not grey. ZooFari 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral & Comment - In my opinion, it will be more suited to be nominated here, where I could give a support vote. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_. -- 09:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to be a part of the VPIC process; from where I sit, an article and an image should be judged by the same criteria, and if an article is good enough to be a GA, then its good enough to be A, and if its good enough for an A than its good enough for FA. By contrast, VP offers images no chance for promotion to FP, and since VPs do not receive a bronze star, are not mentioned in any official avenue, and can not be on the main page the whole point of VP is null and void. Lastly, on a personal note, I consider any comment on an image I add here to the effect of "take this to VPIC" to be an insult; I add images here because I feel they have what it take to go all the way here, not someplace else. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say nominate there too, but I opposed with no further suggestion. Maybe that means anything to you... ZooFari 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking cartoonish isn't a big deal imo. Correctness is by far the most important thing. I'd like to see black space too ideally. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above . An odd mix of styles lacking just a bit of finesse for FP, I think. Not keen on the trajectory crossing the box on the left, for example. Detailed missile doesn't sit well with posterised land & sea, and so on. Valuable image, having said all that. --mikaultalk 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
