Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polskie dywizjony lotn anglia.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Polskie dywizjony lotn anglia.png, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 18:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by User:Lonio17 - uploaded by User:Lonio17 - nominated by User:Piotrus -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Too many cities in the map that make it hard to see where the squadrons were located. Also has badly aligned labels. One dot too many in the date at "Speke". Also, why do some of the places have ("od"/from) dates and others not? Some cities (Southhampton, York,...) appear to use a different shade of grey dot than others. "Exter"->"Exeter", "Gent"->"Ghent". Would have preferred a crop that includes Land's End. Why is London in blue? bamse (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, valid points - hopefully the map's author will address them in his revision. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bamse. --Elekhh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Trivial map, no geographic context other than the cities. In my opinion a map needs considerable sophistication, or historical value, to be featured. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what geographic context you need. Most people would probably have no difficulty locating the depicted area. bamse (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, most thematic maps benefict with the addition of some basic geographic information: topographic, hydrographic and political, at least. In this case not even the north direction or a couple of meridians and parallels are given. I don't know what the original purpose of this map was (maybe to illustrate some paper?) or if such purpose was well achieved or not. However I very much doubt it will be considered much valuable in such a broader context as our multilingual project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that topography or hydrography are relevant for this map which is about air squadrons (which are hardly influenced by rivers or mountains). It would be nice to have some political information, however I understand that there were some changes in that around 1940-41. One would have to pick a certain (random?) time. I agree, that it might be interesting to have some extra information in this map (Germans?) to see why the squadrons were moving around as they did. Please don't put north directions in maps of this scale. Most all map projections have a different north direction, depending on the location in the map. I don't think meridians should appear in historic maps either (unless they are relevant for the topic; e.g. if borders were drawn along them or if it helps to locate the depicted area). bamse (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly do not agree with you concerning the need for background information and for the fundamental map elements: numerical (and/or) graphic scale, geographic graticule and map projection, at least. Please note that this is not an historical map but a modern map depicting historical information, which is a very different thing. Like it is presented, this is little more than a schematic map, way below the sophistication needed (imo, of course) for FP statuts. Anyway, I very seldom vote or even comment on map nominations, due to the practical impossibility of assessing their cartographic accuracy. This was an exception. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
