Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First World War maps

First World War maps

 * Reason:There is currently no WWI trench maps amongst the FPs, so here's one suggestion. I would alternatively suggest the WWI barrage map Image:First Battle of Passchendaele - barrage map (colour balance).jpg
 * Articles this image appears in:Battle of Mount Sorrel
 * Creator:Canadian Corps staff


 * Support as nominator --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Provided that there isn't any undocumented restoration going on. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything obvious. Here's a link to the original that should work. Chick Bowen 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't make image edits. The image is a direct download from Here. I have updated the image details to include the link.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose original – sorry, but there is no obvious reason here not to restore the image, at least fix the torn corners. The image has great EV as it is, but it is a problem that no work was done on this image. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it a little worrying that historic material has to be restored in order to be accepted - particularly in a case like this when the map is perfectly readable. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was under the impression that criteria 8 would make such edits inappropriate because it would cause the main subject to be misrepresented. The subject is after all a WW1 battle map, by its nature and use it is torn and beat up. This one is in fact a fairly good example in that it doesn't contain any large stains, holes and the paper discolouration is even. Colour balancing to remove paper aging may be appropriate but I don't think anything beyond that is appropriate under the current FP criteria. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral on edit – still more work to do, but the major issues have been worked out. I don't understand how some editors can apply criteria that were meant for photographs to historical images. The types of image are completely different, and no "major" edits have been made anyway. The idea with an historical image is to make it look like the original image looked, before it got torn, faded and desaturated, and scribbled on (I'm talking in general, not about this image specifically). Mishandling by people is not part of any historical image, and should not be part of a featured picture on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ynhockey. If the map itself isn't notable, I see no reason not to restore/use a better image. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I second what Noodle snacks says above.  The FP criteria say that minor digital manipulation is acceptable to correct flaws; nowhere do they say that damage renders an image unfeaturable.  Why would it?  Both aesthetically and historically, damage should be understandable as part of an image as it exists.  In the case of photographs, it may make sense to try to get past the flaws of a particular print, given that a photograph transcends any given print anyway.  But that logic doesn't apply to this map. Chick Bowen 16:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that opinion as a general principle but, there is damage there that is not part of the aging or the use of the map, but a poor handing at the time of scanning. I am thinking in those places in which the map is simply folded over itself. There is no historical reason to be that way. I will weak oppose original and weak support re-touched(the second is weak because I wouldn't know whether the restoration is optimal) to try to force some (more) improvement in that direction.  franklin   02:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose original, oppose edit. Restoration isn't an end in itself.  When there isn't enough data in the file to do it well I'd prefer to leave bad enough alone.  That regards technical specs of the file, not encyclopedic value.  I might be persuaded toward neutral or support for the unedited version if the encyclopedic value were more clear.  This is declassified Canadian wartime intelligence?  Is it scanned from the original or a reproduction, and what relation does it bear to the battle?  Durova  386 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is a scan of an original Canadian Corps confidential situation map held at the Canadian War Museum (Control Number: 19870027-018 Call Number: DOCS MAPS 59-D30.F5 ). The control series consists of documents that belonged to Major-General Edward Whipple Bancroft Morrison that came into the museum's possession in 1987. So yes, wartime intelligence. The German attack on the 3rd Canadian Division on 2 June 1916 resulted in the deaths of the divisional commander (Major-General M.S. Mercer) as well as the capture of a brigade commander (Brigadier Victor Williams), both of whom were making an inspection of the front line when the German attack began. The 3rd Canadian Division had to be pulled from the line and its front taken over by other formations. The map was produced on 9 June 1916 while plans were being developed for a counterattack to regain the lost territory (which took place on 14 June 1916). The map would likely have been used at either the divisional or corps levels (Morrision was the commander of the 2nd Divisional Artillery) to display the field sitaution. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)