Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Manhattan Project US Map.png

Manhattan Project Map


I found this a few days ago and come back to it today; having looked at it a little long, I have decided to place it here for FOC status because I feel the map does a good job of showing just how many things had to be assembled across the U.S. to make the Manhattan Project a success. As you may have guessed, this image appears in the article Manhattan Project, it was created by User:Fastfission in Adobe Illustrator and released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Be forwarned that this is a .png image, not a.jpg image, so take that into account if you have a slow connection.

Raven4x4x 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the map is clear, but it lacks a certain complexity and wow factor to warrant featuring for me. Plus: As stated in the image upload instructions the peferred (and technologically superior) format for this kind of illustration is SVG. Benefits of SVG include easier editing, including translations of text labels (there are more Wikipedias than just the English one), and high quality printing (SVG provides infinite resolution). --Dschwen 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn’t create the map, I just nominated it, but I will keep that in mind from now on. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sure this map does a good job in illustrating the complexity of Manhattan Project. But to reach FP standards it is needed a much higher degree of refinement and sophistication. The meaning of the symbols should be explained in the map or, at least, in the picture caption. Alvesgaspar 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is not clear about the image? If you can describe in better detail the kind of caption you have in mind I may be able to do something about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The map uses three different symbols to represent the cities, but its meaning is not explained. Alvesgaspar 10:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The size of the circles is meant to show the amount of importance a certain city or cite had in the project. For Example, Washington, D.C., as the capital of the United States, was responsible for the implimentation and ultimately the green light for using the bomb. hanford Enginering in Richland manufactored plutonium for the Fat Man bomb, Oak Ridge in Tennessee manufactured uranium for the Little Boy bomb, and Los Alamos assembled the bomb. Wendover, noted as being part of Project Alberta, was assigned the task of delivering the nuclear weapons. Monticello and Uravan were both involved with the element Vanadium, which had fissile capabilities. I think Chicago may be noted for Enrico Fermi and his first succsessful nuclear reactor, and to be honest I am not sure about the other cites mentioned on the map (though I have my suspitions). I will look into the other cites and see if I can tie down there role more effeciently. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. There is nothing wrong with this image, but it should be in SVG. Nautica Shad e  s  10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dschwen. Needs to be in SVG. 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, it should be in SVG. But even then, I would oppose it. There's nothing wrong with it as such, it does its job, but it's just not very interesting. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, nothing eyecatching or especially informative about it: it tells me that there were several sites, but it doesn't even tell me what they did. A good improvement would be to use symbols that indicated the purpose of each location, such as encrichment facilities, or testing sites. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I had never really thought of this as being that exciting an image (just a generic map), but one could imagine putting a little more effort into it and making something special (i.e. a map which gave more information about the sites). Anyway it would be pretty easy to convert it to SVG, just as a matter of course. I don't thing SVG support was implemented when I first uploaded it. --Fastfission 01:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd prefer a different format --Puma5d04 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is really nothing about this map to recommend it for Featured Picture - it is rather ordinary. (1) It is difficult to read except at the highest magnification.  (2) It is not particularly pretty or striking.  (3) It does not tell a story or present a new angle on an article.  (4) It does not use the semi-official map colours.   MapMaster 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it is in SVG. - Mailer Diablo 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)