Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wacht am Rhein

Wacht am Rhein[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 19:40:19 (UTC)

Original version

Edit showing different hypsometric shading, larger movement arrows, a key, and Sans Serif font (to meet WP:WPMAPS/Conventions)

Edit 2 lighter hypsometry, original arrows (See comment of 11:38, 11 February 2012).

Reason: FPCR#1: not totally applicable to this SVG, but colour-balance wise I think the neutral, fairly subtle green and 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 (more of a "not unpleasing"). #4: yes. #5: Good encyclopedic value, I would hope, in supporting text in primarily those articles below (and a few others which are weaker). The image has only been in place on Battle of the Bulge for two days, but it replaced a very similar raster version, and I sought views at WT:MILHIST (broadly positive, with a few tweaks suggest which have been made). I think this is about whether it will continue to be used in the article, and the two things I mention make me more confident that it will be. #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.
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: User:Grandiose (derivative work).

Edit 3 Merger of Edits 1 and 2, with Edit 1's hypsometry and Edit 2's arrows

Edit 4 Same as edit 3, but with opaque hysometry (as opposed to Edit 2 which used lighter shading)

Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions/comments I think it's mostly a good map, except for a few points. The file page does need sources for your lines, arrows and other squiggly things, otherwise how do we know it's true? The key needs to explain what the Roman Numerals mean. Some lines have more X's than others, while in other places there's stuff like LXXIV. What does all that mean? You've also got some of the blue and red lines dashed but others are solid, with no explanation in the key. What I do absolutely like is that the text is readable at thumbnail level so the reader can look at the map in conjunction with the article without having to navigate to the file page or actually download the file. :) Matthewedwards : Chat 03:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The American Military map is the source - I've made this clearer on the file page. I should be able to do something about the ROman numerals, only verifiability might be a problem. It's actually that the solid lines (with no arrowheads) are distinct from the dashed movements. Explaining these (they aren't on the original key) would also be difficult to reference, if referencing was important. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added about the Roman numerals/army organisation. Also had a go at XXXX/XXXXX: please indicate if you want some sort of verification for that, or other clarity.

Also, the key should be incorporated into the file rather than in the caption or file page. And some of the lines don't have arrowheads on them. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the advice of Jarry1250, who informed me that he had previously been told to move out the legend to the file description page for another similar map. I tracked this down, it was by request of EyeSerene (here). I concur with the internationalisation approach – do you have a guideline or policy that conflicts? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the Allied line for 18 December near Luxembourg's south border needs colouring in. It's black after the X's. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guideline that conflicts, but consider a classroom teacher who distributes a printed version of the file to his students. Or an author who wants to use the map in a textbook or history book. A paper version will be incomplete without the key. The reason on Jarry's talk page seems false. Why is translating a key any different, or more difficult, than translating the rest of the words on the map such as place names and "Fifteenth Army"? Also look at our other Featured maps, especially the more recent ones that were drawn by Wikipedians - they all include the key in the file. For verification, just include cite the book like any other reference. Matthewedwards : Chat 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have files like File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg which therefore suggests it is down to preference, and mine is for allowing the file to be used without translation to 90% or so of its educational value. There are still words, admittedly, but they are few; preferably they would be none. There is no book, that's the problem. I know what the lines show etc. because I checked and was told on MILHIST. The main map source is the base map itself, which (unhelpfully) doesn't mention these particular meanings. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded an alternative version of the map. Mostly the changes are to make it fall inline with WP:WPMAPS's standards, but other stuff is just common map practice. I've changed the hypsometric tints so that white no longer indicates low-lying land (white is usually reserved for the highest mountain peaks); Font face is changed to a sans-serif one; the movement arrows are bigger and the division lines are now dashed so there is more difference between the two; the international border lines are shaded grey and river colours changed slightly, both per WPMAPS; added a key. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I say I think the legend thing is a bad move, but I accept that's a matter of taste. I think the topographical colourings make the whole thing a lots less clear, but that is what WPMAPS suggests. The arrows part I'm struggling with, though: they seem to have lost out a lot, because some are bigger than others - their thickness depends on their width, which seems wrong. The short attacks weren't necessarily the smallest, and it's not clear where a single attack branches off as in the original. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My first impression is that this is too busy and hard to make sense of with so many lines everywhere. Some suggestions which may help:
- Keep the colour for the altitude, but ditch the darker borders where the height changes.
- Use sans-serif fonts rather than serif ones.
- Use smaller text, perhaps like File:Waterloo_Campaign_map-alt3.svg to indicate the names of divisions etc.
- Use solid lines, perhaps semi-transparent to indicate troop movements.
- Use a different colour for front lines. It is too easily confused with country borders at the moment.
- You could use shading of the troop movement lines to indicate progression with respect to time.
- A key in the image in the context box top left would be nice.
- Put the country names in the context box where they are easier to pick out.
I suggest you take a look at a few of the existing similar FPs too. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the altitude borders – makes a big difference, I think. I've also changed the colour of the front lines to purple (couldn't think of another). Added a description on the key, albeit a short one. I disagree with moving the country labels to the smaller map, I can't help but think the viewer will be flicking between the two to establish which bits of the big map are which bits of the little map - I don't think the country labels are particularly intrusive on the main image. Would you like me to pursue the other things (as I say, the altitude lines make a big difference)? I so, they need further consideration.

Can I upload the new version straight over the last? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to upload it, hope that's OK. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1. Looks very nice. Clegs (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~either~~ edit2 (at the time of posting) I'd like to hear arguments for or against either version. The shading is clearer now. The sans-serif fonts are more readable. Edit1's arrow styles are clearer, but there seems to be lost information vs the other version. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may possibly drag the conversation to down here, I've merged parts of the edited version into the original (now labelled edit two). There were quite rightly questions of what the numerals meant, etc. which aren't answered in the current key/legend, but I don't think it does too much harm. I've made some other small tweaks - faded the background to considerably improve the contrast (I'm not sure the WPMAPS was built with that in mind); made Luxembourg the city, because to the reader it otherwise looks like a place with no label; removed "0m" because the original map didn't say that the lowest shading was 0-200, merely less than 200; I've also reintroduced the original arrows, enlarging them (and putting them into the new colour scheme) - this should make them easier to follow (the concern) whilst addressing two issues: firstly, that the small-to-large design gave a sense of importance to longer arrows, and did not describe branches very well; I've also realigned 200m and 400m to match each other. I wonder if those commenters above could re-evaluate their position on both. I know it's getting messy, but I wanted to avoid another edit, or editing the edit (the latter for obvious reasons). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support Edit 2~~ (see below) I think Edit 2 is a big improvement on both. I didn't consider that people might associate the width of my arrows with the size of the attack. The hypsometry looks good, but they don't match the colours used in the key now (for +200m and -200m) so that needs addressing. I would have just reduced the opacity to 65-70% though, rather than changing the colours, but it's not that important.

Lastly, You should upload "Edit 2" as a new file though and leave the original for comparison for those that haven't seen it yet. Uploading minor edits over each other like changing title case and fixing typos is fine, but this is a major edit. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed the key. I'll remember to keep the original next time, for the time being I've posted a prominent link (I don't believe anyone supported the original). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 The edit2 looks less slick. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean the original or "edit 1"? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mia culpa... 1st edit looks good. 2nd edit looks less "smooth" and colours washed out some.Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the colours are washed out and the arrows are less aesthetically pleasing. In my opinion, it was worth it: contrast (i.e. readability) has been improved, and accuracy kept by reversion to the old (though enlarged) arrow style. The value of this image is primarily its educational value, rather than "striking" (etc.) or other aesthetic adjectives more associated with photography, so in my opinion edit2's prioritisation is correct (see also my note about the size of the attack/arrow problem in edit1, above). Do you oppose edit2 or mere prefer edit1? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have throught aesthetics and EV are mutually exclusive concepts. Perhaps I am missing the point and as such will go neutral on all. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clegs, Saffron blaze, and other commenters: would you be prepared to support a merged version of edit 1 and edit 2 that used 2's arrow style (reasons given above, I think this is very important) with edit1's topographical colour scheme? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I like edit 1 best is the arrow styling; it is much cleaner than the others. Clegs (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation: with the thicker arrows, it is difficult to keep some of the north attacks straight; they seem to merge and divide because lines are overlapping, but that is not what happened in the battle. Clegs (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the arrows, which I did not consider when I used them, is that the tails are all different widths and the arrow heads different sizes. It gives the impression that some attacks were larger than others when in fact they just covered a greater distance. It's misleading at best even though stylistically they might look better. The arrows in Edits 2-4, while looking a bit more basic, give the information in a neutral fashion' As noted below, there are still minor errors in Edits 1 and 2. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added two further edits. Edit 3 features Edit 1's shading and Edit 2's arrows. Edit 4 is the same, but the shading is at 75% opacity. Both feature a couple of arrows with fewer nodes and slightly smoother paths, and the fixing of a couple of previously missed Serif-fonted texts. I've stricken my Support of Edit 2 above, and now support either Edit 3 or 4 (apologies to the closing editor!). Matthewedwards : Chat 06:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth re-nominating once a final edit it made. Perhaps take it to the Map Workshop or PPR to fine tune it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]