Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Antelope Island State Park Map.jpg

Antelope Island State Park Map

 * Reason:I have put many hours of work into this map. This is my second map that I have made for Wikipedia (more are coming as time allows).  I feel this map meets the criteria for selection.  This map shows predominant features on Antelope Island.  I submitted this first to Picture Peer Review for feedback and Enuja helped out a lot.
 * Articles this image appears in:Antelope Island State Park
 * Creator:Justin Morris


 * Support as nominator Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support As a high quality map! - Enuja (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice, but some of the text labels (e.g. Buffulo [sic] Scaffold Canyon) seem to cross up on the lines they're marking. I'd make it so the labels don't overlap, and is that spelling correct on Buffulo? And on the Tin Lambing Shed Basin label, it looks like the letters don't line up quite right. Other than that it looks great. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Fixed labeling, thanks Jeff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinmorris (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Overall great map, terrific quality.--CPacker (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I'm taking the accuracy of it on faith, of course, but it's a fine, professional-looking map. Not entirely sure I like the green colouration for the mudflats, but saying that, any change would make it inconsistent and probably look worse. Have a personal dislike for some of the fonts. Both are piddlingly minor issues in a truly superb work. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I don't know too much about how you access the data from your sources. But, is it possible to give more specific information about them? gren グレン 10:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll probably only ever produce maps for Utah, due to the wonderful resources provided by the State of Utah available both to me in my professional career and personal endeavors (Wikipedia). Ive included links/credits to all resources used to create the map both on the image page and on the map. Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good looking, detailed map, high enc. What more do you need? --Janke | Talk 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Maps should always be in SVG/PNG.. JPG is for photos..  Y zm o  talk  13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. What is the significance of the brown line around the perimeter of the main island and the small southern island but that is not used around the causeway or the mud flats on the bottom right?  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a new version that removes the bathymetric symbolization (as commons had a concern about it). I will upload an SVG as soon as I figure out how to embed the hillshade.  Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great picture. Very detailed physical map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj1020 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (copied from Commons' nomination) -- ArcGis is a powerfull tool and the result of your work is nice to see. I won't vote because I have no effective way of assessing the accuracy of the map. But there is one aspect that I think could be improved, which is the representation of the relief. There is a quite steep slope in the east-west direction (an average value of about 30º 12º) which is not well illustrated. In the map, it seems that the terrain is quite flat from the coast up to very close to the mountain's top, which is not the case (see the aerial photo in Google) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I didn't make the data, and it's not inaccurate. Know what though?  Nothing seems good enough for some people, so fuck this site.  I withdraw my nomination.   And yes you do have the ability to check it.  Go here and to download the DEMs/NEDs. Looking at an aerial from, of all places Google Earth, one cannot determine the accuracy of slopes. Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 03:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I support. It's a great map, though SVG or PNG would be better for technical reasons. D\=&lt; (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just about to boot into Windows to export it again (wanted to read comments first though) and get it into SVG until I read that crap. Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In this case a fancy elevation scale, taken from the ArcGis default options, was used. That was a quite poor solution, as no quantitative information can be taken from that scale. It would have been better to use a monochromatic sequence complemented with elevation contours (and shadows). As for the slope, it can be calculated from the map itself, by dividing the height above the water (at the peak) by the distance to the lake. Anyway, the author has withdrawn the nomination and doesn't look very interested in constructive technical advice. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty nitpicky (and subjective) criticism if you ask me. Last time I checked, maps on Wikipedia were not required to show quantitative elevation information. The shading scale seems perfectly fine to me. Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not nitpicky at all. For a map with this large scale and empty space, I see no valid reason to use this kind of qualitative representation. That would be appropriate for a small scale map or a thematic map. But here the topographic information, in general, and the relief, in particular, are of primary importance for the purpose of the map. A map is not just a beautiful image, especially a featured map. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is it is quantitative. If I incorporated some of the comments I have gotten here and commons the map would look like shit.  Beastly and extremely subjective comments combined with poor English is a recipe for disaster. Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 20:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only beastly comments around here are your own. Please stop being rude! If my English is poor, maybe you prefer to shift to French or Spanish, or maybe... Portuguese? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks, we are on the English Wiki.
 * Indeed we are. And as wikipedians on the english wiki, perhaps it's our duty to *help* those with problems over their language dominance rather then bash them with nonconstructive remarks, for no point other then to try and get a point across, in no way helping the process. Please refrain from such hurtful characterizations in the future (it's rather unpleasant to have a comment called "beastly" and "a disaster". Even if it were correct, it should have been better worded to avoid offense.) as they help noone. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Suspended pending result of. --jjron (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The result was to keep the image. Pstuart84 Talk 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Alvesgaspar and being JPG. We should make sure the problems with this map are clearly listed on the image page so it doesn't mislead anyone. gren グレン 21:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Objections that led to above unsavoury exchange noted, however significant majority support, and concerns re elevation scales are not applied to other maps. Delist nom is available. --jjron (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)