Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wacht am Rhein (2)

Wacht am Rhein (2)
Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 12:08:43 (UTC) Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg during 16–25 December 1944.

]]
 * Reason:FPCR#1: not totally applicable to this SVG, but colour-balance wise I think the project's recommended supporting colours are suitably clear. #2: SVG, reasonably clear, most important detail readable at thumbnailing size. #3: I hope really informative. Also fairly aesthetically pleasing since the colour scheme was changed. #4: yes. #5: Good encyclopedic value, I would hope, in supporting text in primarily those articles below  (and a few others which are weaker). Replaced the previous file recently, but that had been in place for a sufficient time.  #6: US military source for the vast majority of the map (only the inset map is not; I do not think it needs verification). #7: captions, well, used in a variety of ways in the articles, with flexible legend-boxes and the like. #8: N/A.
 * The previous FPC (here) revealed a variety of viewpoints. Ultimately in trying to take a number of things into account, we got a bit lost. However, I believe this file is the most suitable and I considered the issues rased there settled – I can provide further rationales if needed.


 * Articles in which this image appears:Articles in which this image appears:Battle of the Bulge, Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive, Battle of Lanzerath Ridge and Siege of Bastogne
 * FP category for this image:Diagrams, drawings, and maps
 * Creator:Matthewedwards, Grandiose


 * Support as nominator -- Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Very well done; my only grouch is the arrows showing the Northern attacks get mushed together. Not enough of a grouch to ultimately change my mind though. Very well done, and I appreciate all the hard work you put into this to satisfy our whims. Clegs (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as co-author. I think this does a good job of satisfying all issues raised at the previous nom, and has been fact-checked numerous times against the sources. The opaque elevation levels allow for clear reading of the main substance of the map, the battlelines, but still allows the user to see the type of terrain it took place on. Matthewedwards : Chat  16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the arrows look like they were drawn by a wiggly hand and yet others are smooth. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed? I smoothed out the three that I noticed, but we really don't want to deviate from the original sources. Matthewedwards : Chat  01:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- I'll buy that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: One (relatively minor) qualm with the image: some of the allied movement blue numbers are outlined with a thin black line, and this doesn't look extremely great when the image is viewed at full size.  Spencer T♦ C 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it added much, so I've removed the stroke from the labels. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. My concerns have been resolved.  Spencer T♦ C 13:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  The legend is off-ratio to the map, to such an extent that it had to be repeated in the caption; and even at full resolution (which is less than the 1000 px guideline), the legend's pt size is very small, somewhat blurred, and difficult to read. —Eustress talk 17:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be. The size guidelines to not apply to SVGs because they are entirely (and losslessly) scaleable. The full resolution attached to the image is entire arbitrary, and I do not believe that the readability should be judged at that level. Having said that, I do not agree that it is difficult to read. I think the most important point is to consider the image's SVG format. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support My apologies, and thanks for explaining. (When I expanded the image earlier by clicking on the image in the file, it did not open very large, but this time I located the 2000px version and it is flawless.) I'm still not crazy about having a legend repeated in the caption, but I'll defer to others' judgment on that one. —Eustress talk 01:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This is a professional-standard map and a big improvement on the (professional) image it's based on; great work Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

--Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)