Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of Yosemite National Park
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 22:34:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- They say a picture paints a thousand words. You could write a book about this one (in fact, I suspect there are already). Highly detailed; impeccable USGS source; SVG format; strong EV in both articles.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Geology of the Yosemite area, Yosemite National Park
- FP category for this image
- Diagrams, drawings, and maps
- Creator
- USGS original; User:Grandiose SVG version
- Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support ordinarily I think you should wait a week after replacing an image in its most use before you nominate the image for EV, but because it's an SVG version of the same thing I'll support. Good EV for the geology article. Pine✉ 06:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would love to support a good geological map of this area,
but this one does not show enough detail IMO. I don't see a good reason for omitting the drainage network shown in the source map; the remaining physical landmarks (roads, peaks) are far too sparse to show clearly where many of these geological features are. There is a much more detailed map available from the USGS here, including the digital GIS database used to create it. --Avenue (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've restored the drainage network, which somehow got omitted when uploading (hid the layer accidentally, perhaps). My version has ~250 marked areas, the more detailed one is really, really detailed. Accordingly I believe the file nominated fills the required criteria of being among Wikipedia's best work and contributing significantly. Not only is the more complex map not on Wikipedia, but even if it were I think there'd be a place for both. Could you clarify which criterion you believe this nomination fails? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, it is much better with the drainage shown. That was my main reason for opposing initially, so I've struck my opposition for now. The comparison with the other USGS map was in response to the "highly detailed" claim in the nomination statement. I certainly agree that there's room on Wikipedia for both (and I've uploaded the other one to Commons here). I'm still leaning towards opposing, but I need to give this more thought. --Avenue (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've restored the drainage network, which somehow got omitted when uploading (hid the layer accidentally, perhaps). My version has ~250 marked areas, the more detailed one is really, really detailed. Accordingly I believe the file nominated fills the required criteria of being among Wikipedia's best work and contributing significantly. Not only is the more complex map not on Wikipedia, but even if it were I think there'd be a place for both. Could you clarify which criterion you believe this nomination fails? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm ready to oppose again, for insufficient EV, technical quality, and resolution (FP criteria 1, 2, and 5). The file description is a bit light too.
- While it might seem that a geological map would naturally have great EV in an article on the geology of that area, I think the EV here is only moderate. The text makes no direct reference to the map. The article's lede does give an overview of deposits currently exposed in the park, but the map's palette does not help the reader distinguish the two main rock types discussed there (metamorphic vs granitic). It doesn't follow typical conventions for geological maps, but instead strongly contrasts the various intrusive suites in the park. This could be very valuable in an article on the intrusive suites of Yosemite National Park, but seems less suited to a general article on the park's geology which does not distinguish these suites at all. In contrast, a map derived from this one does have good EV in our article on Cathedral Peak Granodiorite, where it nicely shows the extent of that formation. The nominated map also omits most glacial deposits (unlike the more detailed one I mentioned above), so it doesn't really help illustrate the article's Glaciations section. It doesn't seem to have high EV in our Yosemite National Park article either.
- The map's quality seems sub-par in some respects. I know that there is a potential exception to FP resolution requirements for SVG files, but this file is a vectorised version of File:General geologic map of Yosemite area.png. That file is only 746x646 pixels, and the quality of this SVG file suffers accordingly. Many of the shapes have an overly jagged, polygonal look, and some inaccuracies also seem to have crept in where the low-res source image is unclear. For instance, Saddlebag Lake is shown as having two outlets, implying that water runs uphill from it into Lundy Canyon to the north,[1] and the road to the Visitors Center is shown as a dead end rather than a loop. Labels are carelessly placed, with the overprinting of "Tenaya Lake" by "NATIONAL" being perhaps the worst example. These issues become clear when comparing the 2000x2000px enlargement of this SVG file against our 1409x1793 pixel jpg version of the map (which I uploaded a couple of days ago).
- The map is well sourced, and may even be among our best geological maps. But it has too many problems for me to support it. --Avenue (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn: although I feel that EV is the subject of argument, I've deccided to change tack as a first option and nominate the similar but different file Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cathedral Peak Granodiorite. Commenters here are invited to comment. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not promoted --Dusty777 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Dusty777 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)