Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Armia krajowa 1.png

File:Armia krajowa 1.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 22:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Armia krajowa 1.png Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Armia krajowa 1.png

•  Info created by Lonio17 - uploaded by Lonio17 - nominated by Piotrus -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The map appears like an island without the neighboring countries and is therefore lacking context. Text labels are badly aligned and should be larger. Also, it could do without the oversized title in the image. What is the criterion for the chosen cities? bamse (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Other countries are not important for this map; in fact I think that their exclusion makes the image more clear. Chosen cities are the province capitals. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Even if other countries are not relevant, they would help readers to locate the depicted area. (this is even more important here, since the depicted area does not correspond to present day borders) Instead of adding countries to the main map, one could also think of having a small inset map of Europe with the depicted area marked in place of the huge title. Were Radom and Kielce both province capitals of the same province? bamse (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • While many AK districts corresponded to pre-war provinces (voivodeships), this one was one of those that didn't do it well. For reasons that are not totally clear, AK named the region after those two towns (one of which was a pre-war province capital, one wasn't). I think that including all towns after which regions are named in the map makes it more informative, not less (some regions were not named after the towns - in those case the region capitals are included on the map). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't really understand what it shows, and not only because of the polish language I don't know.--Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do tell what other reasons are confusing you, and hopefully the map creator can improve the map based on those. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hello. An example: what means the blue captions, and what mean the red captions in the same "regions"? What is the difference ? Why some "regions" with two cities, why some with only one ? are the areas really administrative "regions" (before the war, due to the war ? ) ? I see cartographical issues too: Where is the north ? Were is the sea ? Where are the technical captions (scale...) ? But all of this is fixable, and corrections could make this work very informative and interesting. I'm sorry, as French, to have to say that, but maybe an english version could be useful too Thank you for your answer to my precedent comment --Jebulon (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Some of that can be explained by a Polish speaker / somebody who reads the article, but you are right - a legend could be useful. FYI, blue - AK's region official names, red - region codenames.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose No proper scale, no properly situated, not SVG... probably educational, but not FP. - Keta (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, valid points - hopefully the map author will respond to them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)