Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Snow cholera map

John Snow's cholera map

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 20:45:03 (UTC)

Original – Map by John Snow showing the cholera cases of the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak.

Reason: The image significantly improves the article on the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak and is a prototypical example of human geography. It is of a high technical standard and resolution. It illustrates the outbreak and human geography in a compelling way, is free, has a good file description, and helps Wikipedians to understand the subject better. It comes from an authoritative source and is an important part of the history of disease mapping and epidemiology, adding to its encyclopedic value. It meets all FP criteria and is among the best examples of disease mapping that the encyclopedia has to offer.
Articles in which this image appears: 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak & Human geography,
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: John Snow & University of California, Los Angeles

Support as nominator – Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – OK for the article, but difficult to decipher and not of general interest. – Sca (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree. "Wow-factor" non-existent. --Janke | Talk 14:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Janke, can the need for "Wow-factor" be overcome by the historical significance and encyclopedic value of an image? Bammensk, Nick-D, and another user below have argued that this would be true in the case of this map. Just interested in your thoughts. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "General interest" is not a valid oppose rationale. We are an encyclopedia, not a magazine. Bammesk (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, all FP/Cs are pro forma subject to Main Page standards. This one flagrantly fails to meet MP standards for notability, clarity, visual acessibility, general interest, etc. Get off it. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"General interest" has nothing to do with it. We have a 15+ year archive of featured content [1], [2], [3], just look at the archives, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. FA, FL, FP criteria [4], [5], [6] and instructions [7], [8], [9] all emphasize "article" enhancement, there is no mention of "general interest" nor "main-page". That's not an oversight or a mistake. Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @all — If no one likes this nomination, is it bad form to take it down early? It appears clear to me that this one is not well received given the current feedback. My apologies if I have overlooked the spirit of Featured Pictures in this case. Thank you all for taking the time to respond. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a candidate can be taken down, it's usually done on request. Specifically, in this case, it looks like this candidate doesn't fulfill criterion #3 at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria, i.e. it's not among "Wikipedia's best" - but don't let that discourage you from submitting other candidates! --Janke | Talk 18:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone, the average success rate of FP nominations is ~1 out of 2. There are approximately 7083 FPs, and 14720 nominations, so it's ~50%. Bammesk (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent quality rendition of an iconic map. At least one book has been published about the map, and its creation formed part of an important development in modern public health. The map doesn't have 'wow' factor visually, but that's not the point: it was a key tool in disease management. Nick-D (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has its iconic status been certified by the International Iconography Commission? – Sca (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Googling 'John snow map iconic' returns lots of sources that go to this, so yes. See this story for instance. This book has a strong focus on the map. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the linked book Ghost Map there's also at least one more book The Strange Case of the Broad Street Pump: John Snow and the Mystery of Cholera. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cholera, Chloroform, and the Science of Medicine: A Life of John Snow also includes heavy discussion of the map in "Chapter 12: Snow and the Mapping of Cholera Epidemics". Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's of historical significance.61.69.172.53 (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struck this vote. See instructions on top of This page. Votes by editors with less than 100 edits will not be counted. Bammesk (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – "historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all" (FP criterion 3). Large part of the Outbreak article is about Snow's work and this map of his fits in well, it "adds EV and helps readers understand the article" (criterion 5). Bammesk (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's of historical significance. 61.69.172.53 (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good rendition of an absolutely iconic and historically important map. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An iconic and famous image, whose immediate readability revolutionized epidemiology. Good-quality rendition. The kneejerk opposition to anything with technical informational content rather than being a pretty snapshot of a view or fuzzy animal, on display in some of the comments above, is a big part of why my participation in FPC has been significantly reduced from what it once was. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Boring. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are bored by informative and historically significant images, why are you here rather than at the Commons FPC? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because promoted FPCs all are potentially Main Page material, and TFPs help to show Wikipedia's face to the world. For that we need photographic or graphics excellence as well as editorial excellence. – Sca (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no excellence in rejecting nominations based on your personal standards. There is no excellence in a main-page that doesn't convey what Wikipedia is. Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not personal, not in the least. They are a) Main Page standards, and b) general principles of graphics and publishing (with which I have long experience). Your gratuitous accusation is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
– Sca (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FPC standards are FP criteria and instructions. A) and B) are your personally chosen standards. You have been rejecting noms based on your own chosen standards for a long time [10], which manifests itself in slow and persistent disruption: frustrates participants including newbies, weighs on participation, sinks nominations in certain categories. Your technical reviews aren't sound either [11]. I agree with Rhododendrites [12] on a topic ban for you. Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: To be fair, there are a lot of featured pictures that don't get featured on the main page as Picture of the day because they meet FP's standards but not Main Page standards. For example, File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg and File:Japanesesuicide.jpg. In short, not all featured pictures need to meet Main Page/POTD criteria, which have their own guidelines. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course there are. So what? That doesn't change the internal dynamics of TFPs, nor the MP standards for them. – Sca (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Snow-cholera-map-1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]