Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/MAX Light Rail map

MAX Light Rail map

 * Reason:I have a created a number of Portland transit maps/diagrams that are in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon. I believe this is the most encyclopedic one since it is up-to-date and is about rail lines which do not change frequently.  Moreover, unlike the official map, it is geographically correct.  In addition, as the image page notes, it uses official transit agency data for the route paths, stop locations and stop names.

As for the FP criteria I believe that:


 * Regarding #1, it's in SVG and the code is clean and very small
 * Regarding #2, it is set for moderate resolution, but since its SVG, it can be enlarged with no problems and the wiki software is capable of rendering it in (m)any resolutions.
 * Regarding #3, as noted above, it may be the best map out there since it has a trait that even the official map lacks
 * 4's OK
 * Regarding #5, it accurately shows the extent of the rail lines and locations of all of the stops
 * Regarding #6, it is based on official data
 * Regarding #7, the descriptions contain the formulas used to convert the data and make the map (it could be used as a reference to making maps from lat/long data)

In addition, it has been to Picture Peer Review and has been modified based on the comments received there:
 * The inset map was expanded 50%, better showing how the tracks are on different streets in each direction.
 * A 1-mile scale line replaced text describing the scale used
 * Transit Center naming has been added to the legend

And for another example of a featured transportation diagram, see Image:Chicago top down view.png

Lastly, I would upload this at Wikimedia Commons, however I do not have an account there. If someone else wants to move it and the other diagrams there, I would be OK with that as long as they can still be visible in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon.
 * Articles this image appears in: MAX Light Rail
 * Creator:Jason McHuff


 * Support as nominator --Jason McHuff (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an exceptional image -- one of many that you've made. I have a couple thoughts, I don't think they should stand in the way of an FP designation, but I'll point them out to see what you think:
 * I prefer to use the legend template in an article where possible, rather than having the legend built into the image. This guarantees that the colors and other important info will be at a legible size.
 * I'm not sure how easy this is to implement, but I'd rather see a blue, red, and/or green line running parallel to each other, than the dotted lines you currently have. It would be easier to see where each line ends.
 * The yellow vs. white dots for "park 'n' ride" versus normal stops is not easy to discern. Can you change to a color that's easier to distinguish than yellow?
 * Anyway, none of this is meant to detract from an exceptionally good image. Thanks for uploading this, and it's got my !vote for FP in any event...I just think there might be a small amount of room for improvement, if you want to take a look at these issues. -Pete (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Re: #2, I am almost done with a version doing that (moving the Blue Line path up a bit and the Red Line down, along with widening the path by 1/3); it will also feature a different P&R color. Jason McHuff (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Commendable effort, but absolutely no WOW at all. --Fir0002 12:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is indeed of encyclopaedic value, but is by no means an exceptional image. Capital photographer (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: How would you compare it to this? (which I think motivated me a bit to do mine) Or is its nomination too old? Jason McHuff (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that one would not pass today. --Janke | Talk 08:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's true, even with ignoring the fact that it's not in SVG since it's older... Darn. I guess it means I'm too late.  However, I'd agree that its nice to see standards rising--it means Wikipedia is getting better. Jason McHuff (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And that image even has a watermark on it... the reason your image isn't going to make FP is because you can do the same thing for almost every city with a metro/tramway. But, hopefully that won't discourage you because this kind of contribution is _really_ important to Wikipedia and often more important than some of the FPs.  There's, unfortunately, not enough recognition for grunt work but it has to be done :) --gren グレン 09:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the watermark: You mean the text in the lower right corner? I didn't even see that, though it could easily be removed.  Also, I'd like to note that while you could have maps like this for every system in the world (which would cause this one to be lost in the crowd), it can be very hard to get internal, official data from some transit agencies.  See this for example. Jason McHuff (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, another question: Does the way it was produced not count? I mean, if it was simply traced from aerial photos or something and the names quickly added, I would've probably not even considered nominating it.  But as I've noted, this was mathematically converted from official data. Jason McHuff (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Very well done, but not interesting enough for FP. Clegs (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Voters are becoming [...] these days. This is not supposed to have WOW factor. Guidelines are not rules, and MUST not be followed as such. This is a map which is encyclopedic and very well made. It's not a beautiful Fir0002 Insect macro shot. Look at it as a map and I'm sure you haven't seen much better. If this gets nominated, it encourages more and more of these to be made for every city and that's what wikipedia is all about. --Arad (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is encyclopedic and a rather good map. With a confusing lack of context with the city of Portland and a mediocre technical standard, however, it doesn't seem appropriate to mark it as a featured picture. Palladmial (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this vote. What is this "confusing lack of context"? Is it something that could be easily addressed in the text that accompanies the image? Also, what is the "mediocre technical standard"? I have not participated in many FP discussions, so is there some jargon here I'm not familiar with? Both points have me scratching my head. -Pete (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that lack of context is referring to the fact that the map doesn't show anything other than the light rail track (no street grid, rivers, landmarks, etc). The comment about the technical standard is hard for me to agree with.  It might not be as pretty as other featured maps, but technically it is excellent.  Cacophony (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Palladmial. Becky Sayles (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)