Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giza pyramid complex (map).svg

Giza pyramid complex


The picture is highly detailed, informative, and interesting. It's also SVG, which gives it scale independence. (I am not the author, MesserWoland is.)

I fixed most of problems. MesserWoland 12:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support. - Paul 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:04 (UTC)
 * Support Wonderful diagram. One thing, the North arrow seems to be missing a line? Not a big deal, it is very encyclopedic and easily read. The SVG format makes it really groovy in my opinion. HighInBC 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. High value work, clear and relevant, just what wikipedia needs. --Dschwen 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Temporary Oppose Some Capital Letters would be nice in the labels. Will support if this is rectified. chowells 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe they have in fact been fixed now. Nauticashades 13:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Very informative. Capital letters may confuse what are official titles with what are simply descriptions. One problem: is "Sphinks" a typo? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-09-05 23:15Z
 * Support. Very detailed. Glaurung 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose until minor problems are fixed, such as: Ugly typography (yes, needs Capitals in some Labels), Sphinks/Sphinx inconsistency in spelling. Otherwise, great image, very encyclopedic indeed. --Janke | Talk 06:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Temporary Oppose. "Sphinx" and not "Sphinks" is the usual English language spelling.  Also (and this is a question, rather than an objection) from a design perspective, is this west-top orientation preferable to the more conventional north-top orientation?Spikebrennan 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that all exampls of "Sphinks" have been changed to "Sphinx". Nauticashades 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I will oppose until capitaization (is that even a word?) of the letters is corrected and spelling is checked.*Nnfolz 15:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it has been. Nauticashades 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * strong oppose . Will change to weak support IF BOTH spelling is corrected AND cpitalization is completed and fixing te Norht arrow shouldn't be a problem while you do that.. I would prefer if numbers were used with an integrated key. Would give strong support to a version with that, capitalization and correct spelling. The words going in all directions confuses me and is difficult to read, especially on a computer where I can't rotate it to be righted. say1988 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * weak support. Please, if you could, upload a version with numbers, which would likely be much less cluttered. say1988 04:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The shading on the lightest sides of the pyramids is too close to the background shading, so the 3D effect is largely diminished.  Titles of objects should be capitalized according to convention.  The more prominent features should be labeled with heavier fonts than some of the features of lesser importance (the eastern cemetary label is currently heavier, larger, and therefore appears more prominent than pyramid of Khufu label).  Also, if possible, the image should be rotated so that North is at the top.  It's a cartographic convention and the orientation of the pyramids is significant. Justin 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, possibly strong support, if above comments are addressed. However, I'm not sure if the orientation of the map should be corrected or if it was intended to be that way for ancient Egyptian purposes (star alignment) (I have little or knowledge on the subject, so I cannot honestly say which is better, but I obviously prefer the "correct" version). -- Tewy  00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support new version. Informative, attractive, and encyclopedic. -- Tewy  21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, way too messy, the labels make the map hard to read. It's a cool map, though, and I'd vote for it if cleaned up. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Vircabutar 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Most of the previously mentioned issues have been cleaned up. Image provides good perpective on different elements of a famous site, and how they sit in relation to each other.  Informative, encyclopedic.  Would change to strong support if there were a little better contrast between colors. --Bridgecross 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the oppose votes were because of errors in the diagram which were fixed after they were cast.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)