Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waterloo Campaign Map

Waterloo Campaign Map

 * Reason:Lots of information; recently vectorized
 * Articles this image appears in:The following:
 * Battle of Waterloo
 * Napoleonic Wars
 * Military strategy
 * Battle of Ligny
 * Hundred Days
 * Battle of Quatre Bras
 * Battle of Wavre
 * Creator:Original made by Gsl. Vectorized by Ipankonin.


 * Support as nominator -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose If accurate, it's good for the article, but as a picture it lacks appeal. --Janke | Talk 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral For me: boring... —αἰτίας •'discussion'• ( Happy new year! ) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Top enc. Labeled very nicely. SVG. All-around pretty. A no brainer! -- ⁪ffroth 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A bit boring in its current state, more colors would be appreciated. -- Shark face  217  02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Added 2 alternates. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Very nice diagram, I'll take your word on it being accurate since I'm no expert to say the least. Cat-five - talk 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (addendum to my support of original), I support the flags but I think coloring the whole thing is a bit much, I'd definitely like to see an edit 3 with the flags but no coloring if possible and would support that. Cat-five - talk 06:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 3 then. Cat-five - talk 07:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support edit 3 (per Cat-five) - excellent. There's one slight problem - for me in Firefox and IE, the scale renders with the bar for 5 miles protruding through the bottom slightly. If that could be fixed, I think this is a brilliant image. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong yet conditional oppose conditions met Lycaon (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC) until some names are corrected (e.g. Gembleux->Gembloux, Chatelet->Châtelet, Philippville->Philippeville, Grammont->Geraardsbergen, Hal->Halle). Lycaon (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed in edit 3. Fixed in all versions.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)  Also fixed Louvain→Leuven, Ziethen→Zieten, and D'Erlon→d'Erlon.  I'm somewhat embarrassed for not verifying the names before nominating.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 3 I didn't mention Louvain, because that is also a recognised English name for Leuven, but maybe it is better like this. Lycaon (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all these names are/where wrong. For example Zieten is also spelt Ziethen in reliable sources, and D'Erlon to d'Erlon depends if it is not at the start of sentence. There is no need to put funny foreign squiggles over words like Châtelet. Also be aware that Belgian towns and villages often have two names and using the French name is not necessarily wrong. One should look at English sources about the Battle of Waterloo not at current map usage. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral Somewhat good looking, but not interesting. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s  ( Talk to Me  ) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See Image_talk:Waterloo_Campaign_Map.svg
 * Why the change from Image:Waterloo campaign map.png to Image:Waterloo_Campaign_Map.svg?
 * shouldn't the word "map" start with a lowercase letter?
 * Following tradition, the Prussians ought to be designated in black not green (as they are in the png image).--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed green to black, and I uploaded the edited images under new names - except the original, because it's being used in articles. SVG is a much better format to store this information in.  See the SVG article for details.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment No flags please as it is unnecessary clutter. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could do with being a bit larger so the text is easier to read. Buc (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is an SVG image, it is already as large as you want it, because with SVG images, you can zoom in as much as you want, and it will never be distorted. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is nice if images are sized so you can examine the detail without having to resize; this is for the benefit of readers. It's just a balancing act between having them small enough to display conveniently on the screen and legibily. On this image I have no opinion either way on sizing, but I would support with a tinted background; stark white is hard on the eyes and often even a slightly tinted gray or tan can make all the difference. The beige used here is not the best choice, however. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I lightened the background on edits 1 and 2. I think it looks better.  I also changed the nominal width on all of them to 1500px.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * SupportThe movements are accurate I prefer the beige background otherwise it has my support. Tirronan (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support All, Preferably Edits 2 and 3 Finally, they're no longer boring. I like Edits 2 and 3, as they are very nice and highly encyclopedic. -- Shark face  217  05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with preference for the beige. --Malachirality (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support any de Bivort 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)