Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vexilographic maps of Pontic littoral by end of 13th-17th century.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Vexilographic maps of Pontic littoral by end of 13th-17th century.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 18:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vexilographic maps of Pontic littoral by end of 13th-17th century (reconstruction)
  • Lucas's point is that because of its encyclopedic value, it would be a good candidate for a nomination for Featured Picture on a Wikipedia. He's asking what makes it a good nominee for Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I found other SVG-maps, ex. They are very similar in quality and have FPC status. Work done at a high level. This map is published in three great gift monographs. High art - „here, it doesn't fit“? Maybe I don’t understand something important in the nomination rules and in the VG-level? — Niklitov (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks; I understand a lot better, but please walk me through the coats of arms I see for Sinop: First, we have the Janjarid Emirate from 1320-21 and 1327, and again under a different coat of arms in 1423. In 1428, what is the flag with the Jewish star and crescent? Then we get the Genoans. After that is a trifurcated white flag; whose flag is that? Then we have a red flag with a yellow rectangle in the center - who is that? Then we have the Ottomans, followed by a red flag. Who's the red flag? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I checked yesterday, I still didn't see all of the flags explained. Really, I'd like to vote for this map, but if I'm unable to use it to explain everything, I can't support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Let me start with noting that over-all this map is much closer to professional quality than some of our current FP (e.g. File:Chicago top down view.png or File:LithuaniaHistory.png). It looks like a it would serve its purpose, but it is visually cluttered. To some degree that is due to the amount of information it has to convey (flags, symbols and numbers). But some of that clutter could have been avoided easily: The major problem I have with this map, is that the blue lines (legend at top left, are those shipping routes?) basically disappear in the visual noise that is created not only by the other symbols and numbers, but also by all those rivers that are not really relevant. Reducing the amount of small rivers to about 10% of what is currently shown by only keeping the ones important for navigating around the map would greatly increase the over-all readability of the map. Each map is a simplified depiction of reality, and one of the most important skills of a professional map maker is knowing what not to show. This is very close to what I'd expect to see in a printed atlas, but not quite FP-close yet. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention, El Grafo! Yes, this is reconstruction of navigation routes from:
(✓ Done I translated the legend on the map into English with Gadget-ImageAnnotator).
This is a reconstruction of old maps. All old maps (Portolan chart) are overloaded with information (ex: File:Europe Mediterranean Catalan Atlas.jpeg etc).  :) Rivers and navigation routes do not interfere at all with the image, but decorate and make the map scientific. For the life of people and travelers of the Middle Ages the river played a huge role — need to show. This is a Maritime chart (this is not a scheme). :) — Niklitov (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]