Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of the Paulins Kill and its Watershed

Map of the Paulins Kill and its Watershed

Reason: This is probably the best and most comprehensive map I've seen in my 2.5 years editing Wikipedia. I believe it meets or exceeds all the criteria listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?, especially condition no. 3. This is an image that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work." The article this image is used in, Paulins Kill is currently a candidate for Featured Article status
Articles this image appears in: Paulins Kill
Creator: User:JimIrwin
Nominator: ExplorerCDT

Support — ExplorerCDT 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prepare to be barraged with 'needs to be .svg' opposes. Good map though, IMO. 195.92.168.163 00:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low contrast, and yes, not in SVG. --Tewy 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in the criteria that says it has to be in SVG. Specious reason to oppose. —ExplorerCDT 03:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if I ignore the fact that SVG comes highly recommended, I still oppose due to low contrast. This just isn't the best Wikipedia has to offer. There's nothing really exceptional about it that makes me think, "featured!". --Tewy 04:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Define "low contrast" because I think it's aesthetically fine, and in terms of what I know of contrast, completely functional. And I recommend you read over that Image Use Policy because it I no way says "SVG only," and does say nice things about PNG. —ExplorerCDT 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don 't care about svg or png, but contrast is an issue (unless the area is steeped in perpetual fog). Also, when clicking on Image:Paulins Kill.png I expect to be able to read at least the labels for the key features of the map. Having to look at the full-sized image is too cumbersome. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do care about SVG (at least provide the source somewhere), but size and contrast are the more pressing issue here, making it hardly legible. --Dschwen 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Map generalization taken too far, resulting in a representation with poor detail, not only in specific thematic information (rivers, lakes, etc.) but also in general geographic information (roads, elevations, etc.) . Also, too small and poor choice of colours. Alvesgaspar 10:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, neutral for own edit. Agree with above opposes. However, to show the difference a higher contrast provides, I uploaded an edit. Some of the tan-colored text which was very hard to read in the original is now much clearer. Unfortunately, other text has become a bit too strong, especially the blue. (BTW, SVG is a better format, since it is scalable, thus much more useful. However, the file format should not be the sole cause for an oppose.) --Janke | Talk 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's another problem with PNG. You can't correct colors, contrast, etc. without treating it like a photograph. --Tewy 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a rasterized image, you can't do anything to it without treating it as a photograph - this is not a specific property of color or contrast adjustment - two processes that are easier to do to a photo than vector elements, in my experience. Debivort 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for revised version by JimIrwin ~~Edit 1~~. Ruhrfisch 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the etiquette for revisions based on the comments, (or even the etiquette for adding comments like this), but I uploaded a new version of the map with improved contrast to the original page. It is similar to the version created by Janke, without some of the harsher effects of doing the contrast modification with an image tool. As for SVG, I don't have tools that will properly convert the GIS map to SVG. When I attempted it, I obtained a 33 MB SVG file that tooks many minutes to render in Firefox, which is obviously unacceptable. Thanks for the suggestions for improvement. JimIrwin 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

png -> svg conversion is not a trivial process. It involves manually trace all the shapes of the png into vector lines and curves, and most automatic conversion algorithms today doesn't produce acceptable, and definitely not FP quality svg. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like Jim Irwin was trying a second export from the map database, rather than a conversion. Maybe we could get that 33MB version into the hands of an SVG fan who could pare it down a bit? Debivort 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for reasons given by Tewy (too low contrast), Trialsanderrors (font size too small), and because the map is dreary. The dark gray and the transparent green just give it a drab look - even the city/county/state labels are in a drab reddish-brown. I believe the map would be better using the semi-official colors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Also, check out this river map for something with more flair. MapMaster 05:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. This is not to say it is a bad map. It is a very good one. It's just not a Featured Picture IMHO.[reply]
- Tan on tan doesn't seem to be "good contrast" and I think this one, not your suggestion has more "flair."—ExplorerCDT 11:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]