Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Global population density

Global population density

Original

Edit 1

Reason: Large map of population density within specific intra-national regions of the world in 1994. Not hugely attractive, but interesting and very encyclopaedic.
Proposed caption: This map shows the number of people per square kilometer around the world in 1994. The current world population is 6.6 billion humans, and Earth's land mass covers 150 million square kilometres, making the overall population density 43 humans per square kilometre.
Articles this image appears in: Population density, World population, Population geography, Overpopulation
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 17:25, Saturday, 6 October 2007
Strong oppose - Without a legend with the definition of the categories, the map is not very useful. Also, the choice of the categories' limits doesn't seem to be the best. Finally, cylindrical map projections are not adequate to represent the whole world (too much distortion)- Alvesgaspar 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded a separate key from the original source. It should be in the map, but I can't work transparencies. — Jack · talk · 18:22, Saturday, 6 October 2007
Oppose. 1994? --⁪froth^t 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - so much detail in there. I don't mind 1994 that much, though, as the densities are probably quite close to proportional. Debivort 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — It's a shame the data is from 1994, but it is a good map. The suggested caption is a bit odd to me, I'd prefer "This map shows world population density according to 1994 data, when the world population was an estimated 5.6 billion humans. The current population is 6.6 billion over Earth's 150 million square kilometres of land mass, making the overall population density 43 humans per square kilometre." I've also uploaded a version with a legend embedded. Looking at it now, I think it's a little out of place (I should have moved it lower, next to Chile), but I need to run out right now. If someone else decides to move it, just make sure you don't cover up any of those islands! It might also need to be made even larger, now that I'm looking at the thumbnail. ♠ SG →Talk 23:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This should be SVG Yzmo ^talk 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a linear scale makes the earth look uninhabited except for small patches. A log scale would convey much more information IMO. --Dschwen 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe - interesting you would say this. The linear scale really shows that there are places that are very highly populated, and most other areas are comparatively sparse - which is true. A log scale might convey the sense that things are more uniform. Debivort 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with Dschwen, this is only useful for showing the most populated places. Also, this type of continuous scale does not show the actual categorization which, obviously, uses a finite number of classes. How many and with what limits? Altering my vote to "strong oppose", there are too many flaws - Alvesgaspar 22:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Only shows the extremes. A city in Russia looks the same as the desert in Africa. NyyDave 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - sorry, but I don't like the colors. A bit hard to see --Vircabutar 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Its a bit boring, and quite a bit out of date... Kennedygr 09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]