Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Manhattan Project clickable site map

Manhattan Project clickable site map
Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2011 at 04:40:01 (UTC)


 * Reason:Very high EV. Use of a visual in an important FAC that is almost portal like (both the article and the image) to many subsidiary stubs and shorter article.  Work done recenty to add Canada and tweak some other technical aspects.  Plus, I love the information density and functionality.  Lot of work involved in getting the site locations and then arranging them in the map.


 * Articles in which this image appears:Manhattan Project


 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/History/World War II


 * Creator:Hawkeye7, Fallschirmjäger


 * Support as nominator --TCO (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Basic map, no additional information that sets it apart from any most other maps. Image mapping is not FPC-reviewable as it's wikicode written into the article, and nothing to do with the file. (I've left additional reasoning on this nomination's talk page because it's a bit too big for here) Matthewedwards : Chat  07:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nice clickable locations, but I see no reason why Mexico isn't on the map and Canada is (The two sites in Canada aside). No caption describes difference between all sizes of circles. - Blieusong (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was US only at first, but we added the CAN facilities as they were significant and close. Mexico had no Manhattan Project sites.  If you wanted to gig us for not having the UK Tube Alloys site, that could be a complaint.TCO (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure if this belongs here. Are we voting for the map itself or the clicking mechanism? We should probably encourage this type of functionality since it requires a certain amount of relatively thankless effort, but this is probably the wrong place to do it since an FP will probably get displayed in several sizes and the clicking data would have to be rescaled each time for it to work (afaik). Also, some of the links point to labs or test sites while others point to cities; this seems inconsistent to me.--RDBury (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Some of the information here seems to be unsourced. For example Sylacauga is not mentioned in the article and there is no reference given that it was involved in the Manhattan Project. There doesn't seem to be any source for the information given on the file description page either.--RDBury (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * voting for the clicking. Just like on some pics, the caption is an important part of the thing, that is not in the image ourself, but is part of our criteria.  I'm fine with it never running on the front page.  Actually, maybe I can put the clicking code in the file description page (half a loaf?). (I should probably do that at times with captions that give more info than the file desc page has.)  I'm going to go clikc on all those links.  Don't worry, keep opposing...am actually happy that you all looked at it so carefully.  :-)TCO (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are five additional articles that are linked to that aren't mentioned in the page, and something like four or five articles that don't mention the Manhattan Project when you get to them. Cf my additional comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Manhattan Project clickable site map Matthewedwards : Chat  21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there are newer ways of doing this, ways that don't prohibit our blind users and their screenreaders from coming to a screeching halt when they hit our weird coding. WP:ACCESS has more details, but this kind of mapping is a bit depreciated, so they should be highlighted instead. Without doubt it's a good theory, the image itself needs to be interactive, rather than adding text within the article. If that were to ever happen I could be persuaded Matthewedwards : Chat  21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Matthewedwards. I can see something like this becoming standard at FPC in the future but I do not feel the coding used here is appropriate subject matter for FPC. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very useful clickable map that shows the location of each site clearly--Someone35 (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)