Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lewis and Clark expedition map

Lewis and Clark expedition map


The famous historic map created by Lewis and Clark, detailing their expedition across northwest America, which forever changed mapping of the U.S. Among collectors, this map has become quite valuable, and even modern copies of it are expensive. The image had to remain large for all of the text to be readable. Currently used in Lewis and Clark Expedition.


 * Nominate and support. -  BRIAN  0918 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Shame its so small though. :0) --Deglr6328 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Strongly Oppose Yes, the map is famous and very articulate, but the image itself is as captivaging and aesthetically pleasing as a 4 year old's doodle on gray paper with black markers until it's enlarged -- and when it's enlarged it's simply too big, and for anyone not intending to print it out it is useless. --JPM 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Above user has 10 edits.
 * This is Wikipedia FPC, not Commons FPC. The point of the Featured Pictures here is to illustrate an article well, which a map of the Lewis and Clark Expedition would do for said article, besides its historical value. See for example the first photograph, which isn't very pleasing to the eye, but has great historical value. That's why it became Featured. You say that the map is large, and thus useless. I would say that if it was shrunk to where none of the text is readable, that would render the map useless. Isn't that the purpose of maps, to be read? In any case, we have similarly large (or larger) images already, so I don't think this is pushing it. It is necessary for the image to be this large, so "too large" seems a bit subjective/unfounded. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-7 01:08
 * I see you to your point on the Wikipedia FPC/Commons FPC idea. I should clarify: yes, there are larger images that have been featured, but they don't all have text and small details to look at. When you look at a map you want to see the whole picture and be able to quickly reference to any point on it. It seems too difficult to do that with this image, unless it is printed. --JPM 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it only difficult for you because you are not familiar with the area? This map is one of the most famous historical maps, and illustrates the content of its article perfectly, so it fulfills the requirements of WP:FPC. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-7 15:27
 * I am familiar with the area -- I've taken my share of American history courses, as have a lot of people here have, so don't assume I'm not. You obviously want this photo up badly, so I'll just change to neutral like Dschwen did down there. I still don't agree with you but you'll just cite that sentence to death to counter me, so I won't bother. --JPM 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want the map up badly. I just want the guidelines of FPC to be followed to some degree. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-7 17:19
 * And we disagree on that degree. --JPM 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - while it's not stunning, it highlights the article well and adds considerably to it. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. enochlau (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose FPs should not only illustrate their article well, they should also be striking. I agree with JPM. D e nni &#9775;  12:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The first sentence on FPC says: "Featured pictures is a list of images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." This definitely illustrates the article well, so it has fulfilled the requirements of FP. We have other featured pictures that are not striking, such as the first photograph. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN  &bull; 2006-01-7 15:20
 * And I voted in favor of the Niepce picture, becuse, for me, it was a striking image. Frankly, I'm disappointed that someone decided that the text that ran so long with FP Candidates, namely, "Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant" was no longer relevant. I choose to continue to adhere to the belief that Featured Pictures should not just illustrate their article well, but should also be striking. No change in my vote. D e nni &#9775;  01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Oppose . High resolution and clarity. An impressive piece of media which would make a great FP... ...on commons. --Dschwen 15:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Commons is for striking images, so it probably wouldn't go over well there. Wikipedia is for informative images. See the first sentence of WP:FPC. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-7 15:20
 * Wow, you are fighting for your baby ;-). But you do have a point. I'll still go with neutral here, since it is not eye catching as a thumbnail (thinking how it would look as POTD in the Mainpage). --Dschwen 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the bigger concern is that it illustrates an article well, not how it will look on the main page. It never has to be on the main page. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-7 16:43


 * Oppose. Good for the article, but not for a FP. --Janke | Talk 16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I find the detail and information on the map informative and striking enough for FP status. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 19:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For more evidence of this map's popularity, note that it is the most purchased map in the David Rumsey Collection of famous maps. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-8 19:18
 * this is an excellent addition to the wikipedia. Very informative, very historical, very telling.   drumguy 8800  - speak? 13:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Illustrative, but not visually interesting. It's a featured picture after all. Eyesclosed 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User's 12th edit. Other edits are FPC also.
 * Support - I think the informativeness is key here. &mdash; Catherine\talk 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer T  02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

