Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Byzantine Constantinople.svg

Byzantine Constantinople

 * Reason:The diagram appears very informative, provides a good overview of the city of Constantinople and the image page contains a detailed caption.
 * Articles this image appears in:Constantinople, Fall of Constantinople, Walls of Constantinople, Baths of Zeuxippus.
 * Creator:Cplakidas


 * Support as nominator --It Is Me Here (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Full whole-hearted support, this is a lovely map, detailed, well-drawn and extremely informative. As a history buff and specifically as a medieval Balkan history buff, I can't oppose that. The only drawback? This map of the Second Rome makes me feel ashamed of my wretched map of the Third Rome, Tarnovgrad :) Todor→Bozhinov 19:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. It is indeed a wonderful image. But the text is difficult to read, and at times choppy (not sure what the technical term is for that). Perhaps it's a function of the font used? I know this is a non-trivial objection, given how much text there is. If this was addressed it would have my full support. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. Could this be a rendering problem? Chick Bowen 00:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support if the font is changed to a sans serif font. I agree with Mostlyharmless's opinion as well.--Caspian blue 01:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The dashed blue line representing the lower Lycus river is unexplained in the legend.  Spikebrennan (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, there is a blue line on the left edge near the bottom... and some of the way along the bottom left. Why is there a need for a darker blue border? gren グレン 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by creator. Honestly, I'm both surprised and delighted, as a lot of work has gone into this (a big and heartfelt thanks to the nominator). Someone should have asked me though, since the map, unfortunately, is not quite ready yet. As some people noted, the text is choppy at places. I have made an inquiry in the Commons Graphics village pump, but the only reply wasn't really helpful. Apparently however, it depends on browser configuration, since some people claim to see no problems. If anyone with knowledge of svg-making could help, it would be very much appreciated. The blue line at the harbour of Julian represents the conjectural extent of the harbour in the 4th-6th centuries. Haven't yet found a good way to represent that. Any ideas? But most importantly, as far as the map is concerned, there are still some details and features to be added, and some minor corrections to be made. I would be dishonest if I said that the map is 100% correct, both because many features are conjectural (blame the scholars & archaeologists on that) and because mistakes may have inadvertently creeped in on my part. That said, it is, I believe, the most complete and accurate map of Constantinople I've seen on the web (and I've seen a lot, which is why I made this), and I promise to keep it up to date and as much as possible correct. So please vote bearing the above in mind. In conclusion, unless the svg issues are resolved, I'm seriously thinking uploading it a a png file. Cheers to all, Constantine  ✍  22:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would suggest that the nomination be closed until Constantine feels that the map is complete. Constantine, you may want to consider checking with WikiProject Maps for advice.  I'm looking forward to seeing the finished project!  (May I suggest a different map symbol for conjectural locations of structures, such as a different color or an outline rather than a filled-in shape?  Spikebrennan (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the text appears choppy, you can convert them to paths. However, this makes it difficult to change the text later, so be sure that you put the typefaces, sizes, colors, etc. in the metadata.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry - I didn't realise that the map was not finished when nominating (it's still pretty good, though, I would say!) and could have sworn that I'd messaged the image's creator at some point; if not, it must have just slipped my mind (again, I do apologise). Anyway, if we need to give it some time, then fair enough, but I would strongly advise against a PNG version when an SVG version is feasible and would obviously be more useful in terms of its unlimited scaling capabilities. It Is Me Here (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I suspend this nomination? MER-C 13:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize :). And yes, it should be suspended, at least until the svg issues are resolved. (see below) Cheers, Constantine  ✍  14:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. After the advice I received, I converted the text into paths, and also enlarged the map by about a third to make it more readable. As far as the readability issues are concerned, it should be OK now. Some mistakes found in previous versions have also been corrected. The minor irregularities in font thickness that I see in full view are probably my browser's fault, or do others have them as well? Constantine   ✍  18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Full whole-hearted support as per Todor. MapMaster (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki's SVG rasterizer crapped out and failed to render the text (works fine with The Gimp). Yay! MER-C 08:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've finished the map, it includes now all the features I could find. Because of pretty much had it with the endless problems caused by the svg file, I have also uploaded a png version (right), which I recommend for use, and I intend to do the same for at least the German and Greek language versions. For technical reasons, I am nominating the png as a replacement candidate for the svg file. Sorry to everyone involved for this long mess. Constantine  ✍  11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So which map is it? The one with labels, right? I fully support that one. Srnec (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As there appear to be too many problems with the rendering of the svg file as a thumbnail (it's OK in full view), I have proposed replacing it with the png version, including in its candidacy for featured picture. Thank you for the support vote :) Constantine  ✍  11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support the new version. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(Bump me if the SVG decides to work and I'll replace it). MER-C 07:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)