Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Puerto Rico Map, Topographic.

Puerto Rico Map, Topographic.
Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 19:28:48 (UTC)
 * Reason:IMHO, meets most if not all criteria
 * Articles in which this image appears:Geography of Puerto Rico
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Diagrams,_drawings,_and_maps/Maps
 * Creator:Quazgaa


 * Support as nominator -- QuAz GaA  19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there a reason for the line down the middle? Can it be removed?  Spencer T♦ C 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the line is a direct result of combining the image from 2 seperate ones. This action was performed before the LOC uploaded it to their library.   QuAz  GaA  15:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop can remove that line. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Another question. Is there any historical significance to this map from the 1950s? I see that it's the only topographical map in the article but I'm not convinced that it's the sort of image that I'd like to see featured. It's old enough that I'd have some doubts about the accuracy of the topography, but new enough that I'm not sure if there is significant historical importance for it - it's not a rare old map like we have previously featured, for example. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise though. It's definitely high res and quite detailed. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is historical significance to this image. However, I should note that "Historical Significane" is not a FP criteria for inclusion.  It is used only as an exemption to meeting these criteria.  The nomination lies primarily on its technical properties, accuracy, and detail.  I don't believe there are any Featured Topographic maps in WP or commons that show colored shaded relief to such extent and resolution as this one.  Other than accounting for Human Development, and Land slides within the last 60 years, I believe this map to be a highly accurate representation of the total Geography of the Archipelago of Puerto Rico for its age.   QuAz  GaA  15:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed my point though. It's not about whether it's specifically in the criteria, but whether there is anything about the image that gives it particularly good EV. Historical significance is one of those things that could get it over the line. And when I referred to it being from the 1950s, I meant more in terms of the ability to accurately map the topgography to modern standards without the aid of GPS, satellites, etc. Because unless there is historical significance, I can't see why we shouldn't be evaluating it against modern standards. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I thought I addressed your point above when I said that I don't believe it has any historical significance. What interests me here is the evaluation to "modern standards" that you mentioned.  Is this evaluation seperate from the Featured picture criteria?  Should a "modern" evaluation be applied to the methods in making a Topographic map with 1950's technology?  As for a Wikipedia relative comparison evaluation, my biased opinion is that this image will fit nicely with other non-historical Featured Maps thus meeting criterion 3.  QuAz  GaA  19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You did address my point in the sense that you did admit it has no historical significance, but you didn't seem to (originally) catch my point about how historical importance can make the difference between something having enough EV or not, so that's why I elaborated. And 'modern standards' is not strictly part of the criteria - the criteria can't mention everything. The aim of the criteria is to provide a framework for us to evaluate the image, but exactly how we evaluate the image depends largely on what type of image it is. In this case, if a map does not have historical significance, I would expect to evaluate it on modern standards. I'm not arguing whether or not it *IS* accurate by the way. I can't say my knowledge of topographical standards and technology is good enough to make a fair judgement. I'm just raising the issue that it may not be, by modern standards, as accurate as it should be. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose sorry but it is nowhere near the quality of the Florida FLC below; and being so recent does not justify being a jpeg as opposed to a svg. Nergaal (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is nonsense. This map was printed in 1952! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not nonsense if you interpret the comment to mean that any 'modern era' map should be in SVG format if the intention is for it to be as useful and accurate as possible, but I admit I don't know whether this was actually Nergaal's intention... and I know there is some disagreement on that anyway, since SVG is infinitely scalable and there is no way of knowing to what extent it is accurate. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  19:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe this image should be compared to "modern" SVG's such as the Florida FLC below. My reasoning is that when this map was made, the printing methods used where more artistic in nature than today's Cartoonish SVG's.  I believe this map was made to look as the USGS thought it would look from space.  Using realistic earth hues and superimposing elevations (tan), Primary roads (black &red), Rivers (blue), and other features to make the best representation of a topographical map of the early 1950's era.  I am sure this process was automated, but this was not a digital computerized process of which all SVG's are. Their comparisons should take the form of Appples and Oranges and this image should stand on its own merits.  QuAz  GaA  20:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why anyone would say the map is not historically significant. I suppose it's again the case of "one man's trash is another man's treasure", and I don't mean this at all in context of the wealthy and the poor, but in the PBS Road Show context where depending thru what eyes you are looking at something is how you can see its value. To complete the idea, "you were looking at a goldmine all along and it was right under your nose but you never saw it." There are people who will give much to have a hard copy of an old map like this in their hands. One reason is this map shows the state of the PR highway system in the 1950s like no current can do it. Road number changes, (like PR-123) and (PR-10) and roads numbered to 199 only is shown.  Another reason it is historically significant is that this map shows the flow of rivers at a time when man had not yet significantly intervened in changing their course. Also, in Puerto Rico some rivers have changed names unofficially through the decades. This map shows that.  This map also shows, better than any recent map I've seen, that Cerro Las Tetas (Tits Hill), and also known as "Las Tetas de Cayey", was actually always located in Salinas, not Cayey. Those of you versed a bit in history know this was the source of an interesting Puerto Rican Court battle some 5 years ago. Also shown is the course of the railroad lines of the American Railroad of PR, something that little was known about before, and partly responsible for the lack of a wikipedia article so far on the subject. Modern maps don't show this.  So, yes, this map IS historically important.  Of course, if you define historically significant only in the narrowest of all senses, such as "the map is historically significant because it is the map that President Roosevelt handed governor Tugwell during WWII to develop the Puerto Rico road system to wartime standards", or something along those lines, then it would fail to be historically significant... but then you are missing the whole meaning and value of what history is all about - that its not just a collection of dates, people's names and places. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * You can argue that, but it needs to be shown through the encyclopaedia IMO (the articles that it's in etc), not just if you're well versed in Puerto Rican history and can intuit the EV by looking at the map directly. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense, but that's precisely my point: I just showed it to you. It's just that some people may never see it. Regards. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * It sounds like you are suggesting that unless you're well versed in Puerto Rican history, then you have no hope of appreciating the EV of the image. In that case, it doesn't have EV as far as I'm concerned. This is an encyclopaedia, not an academic journal. If the EV of the image isn't self-evident, then at the very least the article should provide it. If it doesn't, then it's not as valuable as it should be. If you think you've just showed me the EV, then incorporate it into the article. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose' I am not wading through the comments above to see if this is mentioned, but at full res the two halves of this photo (opposite sides of the dark line) don't line up. In fact they seem to be on different scales with parts lining up too high and other parts too low.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)