Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Allied naval operations off Japan (2)

Allied naval operations off Japan (2)
Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2012 at 21:09:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:Previous nomination threw up a few small things which have been fixed. As before: SVG format; complicated information that is not easily replicated in text form; clear presentation; standard colours; very informative to the reader; US military source. The consensus edit is presented here.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Air raids on Japan, Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II (just replaced the previous FPC file with the consensus edit)
 * FP category for this image:Diagrams, drawings, and maps
 * Creator:Grandiose


 * Support as nominator -- Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per previous nomination Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Oppose. I stayed out of this last time because I don't really have a strong opinion either way. However, given another go-round so soon, here's my thought: It doesn't grab me visually and doesn't have the over-the-top EV to offset that. If it were to provide more information than just "plane strike" and 'surface bombardment" (for example, what ships were involved) I might go for it. Also concerned with scale. Are the bars the actual fleet location at the time of bombardment? They're 35-40 miles off-shore, and the only ships that had that sort of range were the big battleships. Were the smaller ships not involved? Clegs (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know, perhaps Nick does, but it's not clear. It's a US military map, if it's only a selection of the attacks it would have been odd to have omitted it – and certainly not without reason.
 * Insofar as others might wish to take this into account, the appropriate criteria for this sort of fault are: 3.2 It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more... diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative., 3.3 A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. and 5.2 A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The locations of the ships isn't accurate; the bombardments were conducted within visual range of the Japanese coast and the carriers were generally a bit further offshore. However, depicting this accurately would mean that the bombarding ships would be placed almost on the coastline (thus obscuring the names of the cities they attacked) and there would be long lines all over the place showing the (approximate) routes taken by the carrier aircraft. As such, the placement used by the original US military map maker seems a good compromise. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Is it possible to rotate the map so that the latitude lines are roughly horizontal (now they are quite angled with the right side being much higher)?  Spencer T♦ C 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think rotating it would be a good idea, it would only serve to make it a larger image with more empty space. - Running On Brains (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it's very detailed and clear at high resolution, but at thumbnail resolution you really can't see anything. I would like it better if the legend were larger, and maybe the names of the islands as well, and so you could at least see a rough summary of the image at thumbnail resolution. Otherwise its encyclopedic value suffers. - Running On Brains (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, that sits oddly with current practice. Obviously I'm careful of doing so, but images like this FP (at 320px) and this (also 320px) don't render usefully at thumbnail size: we expect people to click through. The criteria don't really seem to address it, which may also lean towards not considering it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn pending consideration of the merits and feasibility of additional information. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It seems like there is a lot of information that could be in this figure.  Per Clegs, the identities of the major ships (or at least the task groups) would add significant value.  Some of this sort of information is already hinted at; for example, on 28 July there are three carrier plane strikes shown, originating from two adjacent icons&mdash;the reader is left to suspect or guess that this could represent two separate carriers/groups operating in the same waters (one of which launched two sorties), but we really don't know for sure.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)