Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Second Punic War (2)

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Map of Rome and Carthage at the beginning of the Second Punic War

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2012 at 20:00:45 (UTC)

 
Original – Map of pre-Second Punic War Mediterranean
Reason
See the previous nomination for further details – I tweaked several things during that nomination, and had some problems with the rendered (which now appear sorted). I'm more than happy to respond to anything said in the previous nomination, but I felt that I've attended to it all in some fashion (I would have let that nomination run, had the rules allowed it).
Articles in which this image appears
Second Punic War and Campaign history of the Roman military (contributes strongly); Roman Republic, Po Valley raid Battle of Utica (203 BC) (useful but not essential).
FP category for this image
Diagrams, drawings, and maps
Creator
William R. Shepherd, original; User:Grandiose SVG version and alterations.
Your browser is responsible for rendering the "full size" preview (only nominal with an SVG, which is infinitely scalable); obviously I'd to resolve that issue for most browsers but a mask was the only practical way of doing the coloured areas. "This image rendered as PNG in other sizes" should give the correct result. Was there something you were trying to check? On my display, the preview on the file page is only a fraction smaller. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same problem with firefox and IE. I don't understand your explanation - I've never had anything similar to this with other svgs... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Normally your browser would render the SVG the same way the Wikimedia servers do (but I regularly notice typeface changes, for example). Masking is by far the best way of achieving the coloured areas and it is a shame that for some reason browsers don't reflect this. However, the "This image rendered as PNG in other sizes" should achieve the same end. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it in chrome either. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way of example, the Featured Picture File:Florida topographic map-en.svg displays in a different typeface. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: reimplemented as a single unit to avoid this problem. (Also slightly decreased the stroke on the border, which was an implied proposal of the last FPC.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have only some of the named cities their modern name despite the fact that some of the others also still exist in modern times?
  • No possibility to see the difference between The Alps and Illyria.
  • Some Rivers have no names given on the map.
  • The in this case irrelevant Bay of Biscay is named but the important Adriatic, Ionian, Ligurian and Tyrrhenian seas aren't.
  • No highlighting of the capitals Carthage and Rome.
  • Map seems as if there were, except of Carthage and Rome only barbarian tribes in the world. And with this fact comes the questions why cities like Epidamnus and Barca are named?
  • Not clear if Venetia stands for a tribe.
  • Ligurians and Turdetanians, why not their original names Ligures and Turdetani?
  • Why are the Turdetani named but all others are Celtiberians?
  • Why is the Iberian Peninsula named Spain, a modern name but the Balkans named historically Illyria and Gaul didn't even has any name or tribes?

So far for my reasons why I oppose this map to become a featured picture. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a new version which addresses some of your concerns. On the first point it is impractical to include all the modern names for the places listed on the map. I could go through and remove those that there are but I think this would be a grave mistake. They're useful as far as we can include them and removing them would worsen the map in an attempt to get a consistency that isn't worth having.
On the second point, there isn't one. They are both marking out extra geographical areas, or so I believe. On the third I have named some more; I couldn't find the name of the river – definitely in the original – but I would if I could. On the fourth I have removed the offending "Spain" label. On the fifth point the capitals were highlighted (bigger typeface and no italics) but I have changed their mapmarker to make this even clearer. On the sixth, I think the most important point is that the map's value is in showing the basis for Punic War. Details of other areas is very, very difficult to come by (there are plenty of examples of maps like this (run a Google image search for "Second Punic War map" and none of the first hundred (as far as I can see) show anywhere else in the Western Mediterranean. The justification for cities I ran through on the previous nomination, but it comes down to Mr Shepherd's discretion a bit, and I was going for verifiability.
On the seventh I've made it a bit bigger so it is more similar to other regional labels. On the eighth, it's not my place to go changing the original like that; it's clearly a personal choice. There's nothing about the current way which is wrong or misleading. The ninth Mr Shepherd had to draw the line somewhere; presumably he thought that the Turdentians were important in understanding the story of the war whereas others weren't. On the last point, I have removed the offending label. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you Grandiose, for me it's still no featured map but I change my vote from oppose to Neutral. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fimly believe that the map Is among Wikipedia's best work – among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer and adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article and should be promoted on that basis. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Neutral votes count in en:Wiki and hinder the positive outcome of this candidacy? --Bomzibar (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC) If, my whole voting should be withdrawn if not everything stays as it is. --Bomzibar (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so; I was replying for the benefit of other reviewers who may read your opinion (as well they should). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Second_Punic_War_(2)&oldid=1085532626"