Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kaziranga National Park map

Map of the Kaziranga National Park

 * Reason:The image uses the colours recommended by WikiProject Maps for consistency. It is drawn to scale and is an example of a good looking, functional map.
 * Articles this image appears in:Kaziranga National Park
 * Creator:User:Nichalp, modifications by User:Pradiptaray


 * Support as nominator &mdash; =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Strongly - a very good map. Although there are no official colours yet specified by WP:MAPS, the list on the talk page is near enough completion, and this conforms. The detail is superb, with no jagged edges/sharp corners or faults as far as I can see. Well done, this is an exemplary candidate for a map nom. And by the way, the current Best. Map. EVAR. is Holy Roman Empire 1648.svg - incredibly detailed, large, and the description page is the best I've ever see for any image. Well done. E8   T10   A9  —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Sorry, but I don't agree. Although the map pleases the eye, its technical quality is far from enough to reach FP status. Here are some drawbacks: i) No idea where the place is. The "framing" is quite tight and there is no insert to help locating the park inside India (such insert exists in the original map); ii) The density of information is very poor: only some roads, tracks and villages are shown. No information on the surface relief or land cover; iii) The orientation of the labels in the map is not the best: almost all are horizontal. Question - What are the red dots? - Alvesgaspar 11:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could I modify it in someway? 1. For example, an inset map is not a requirement of a map at all, the criteria says that it should be pertinent to the article it is in. The article already has a locator map, so having one in would be redundant, and bloated. 2. I can make the necessary adjustments to reduce the tight crop. Is that what you are looking for? 3. What sort of density information are you looking for? The map is of a forest, and specific named locations in it. There are no villages in the forest, so nothing else to add. Major lakes, and rivers are depicted in the map. 4. Surface relief and land cover would be physical map. The elevation hardly varies by 20 metres, so I'm not convinced that this would be a helpful addition. 5. Are you looking for any other sort of orientation in the map? Labels are usually always horizontal in maps. 6. Those red dots are locations. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, you could try to put a little more detail. The level of generalization is excessive even at thumbnail size. Note that this topographic map of the area, whose scale is only 1:250 000, has more detail per unit area, especially hydrography and relief information. For example, the mountains which exist south of the park and the lakes inside. Also, I think the area depicted should be much larger, to better contextualize the park in its geographic region. Of course, no improvement can guarantee that the final product will be good enough to be featured, even if the final result is technically impeccable. After all there are regions “cartographically” more interesting than others and the “wow” factor is really relevant here. Alvesgaspar 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what detail I could put in. I feel having the relief information would be excessive, and the two other comments for this FPC seem to be supporting on the basis of its simplicity. If more people can comment on this issue, I could accede to this suggestion. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support informative and clean -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Although I do agree with Alvesgaspar's point 1, the picture could use an insert, also it should be pretty easy to acheie that. Good luck! --Spundun 08:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've changed my vote to Strong oppose because it is hard for me to accept that this map will soon be taken as an example of an exceptional cartographic work. Which is not, for the reasons explained above. It is clean and good looking, but quite far from excelence in cartographic terms. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd prefer to see the map incorporate a locator insert, but that's not essential. The big problem for me is with the labels.  Many appear badly aligned; some are difficult to read, and in some cases it's not immediately clear what they refer to.  While it is common on maps for most labels to be horizontal, river names are often placed to fit the feature, and that would be of real benefit here.  Also - where is the "Panbari Reserve Forest", which is mentioned in the bottom right of the picture?  It should either be shown as a point if it is small, or as an area if it is larger. Warofdreams talk 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with Alvesgaspar on this one. Lycaon 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alvesgaspar. See the Falkands map for an example of featured quality. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm offline at the moment, without access to my PC. Please allow me some more time to respond. Regards, Nichalp 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll move this down for the time being. MER-C 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please add an inlay to specify the area being covered. other than that, pic looks good. Kalyan 06:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the inlay really required? Doesn't the lat and longs suffice? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Anwar 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Anwar do you have a statement to make? You oppose every single India-related FAC and FPC when you check it. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 23:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)