Nominate and Support —
UCLARodent 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Ambiguous geographic representation, hard to decide where is land and sea. Bad choice of lettering specially in the legends. No indication of scale, location (geographic coordinates) and orientation (direction of North, at least). Not pleasing the eye due to lack of colour. In short, very far from FP standards.
Alvesgaspar 14:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's boring and not featured picture material. --¿Why1991ESP. |
Sign Here 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for all the reasons given by Alvesgaspar above. However, thanks for making the map, it's an excellent addition to the encyclopedia but not FP standard -
Adrian Pingstone 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Please check the etiquette section of
WP:VOTE. Merry Christmas to all by the way. --
89.51.46.32 10:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Ooops, that was me. --
Dschwen 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think the users above have adequately identified what needs to be done to the image to make it FP material.
enochlau (
talk) 05:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It just fails to catch my attention like a featured picture should. It's just not as good as it could be. Maybe adding some colors would make it a bit less boring better. Merry happy
ChristmaChanuKwanzaDan :-).
Ilikefood 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Moderate oppose as per all comments above; only in full view can a viewer truly determine which is land and which is sea. In addition, I think that the fonts do nothing but hinder the image quality. As per Ilikefood's comments, perhaps a minimum of two colours, to help identify land and water, would help considerably. --
AltirisExeunt 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. The semi-official colors at
the semi-official colors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps would do wonders for the map. I also agree with the comments that the location names add little to the understanding of the map, but do distract from the story -- perhaps they should be in a lighter gray, or partially transparent. And I think that the movement arrows could be larger or snazzier such as used
on this map.
MapMaster 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Nominate and Support —
UCLARodent 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Ambiguous geographic representation, hard to decide where is land and sea. Bad choice of lettering specially in the legends. No indication of scale, location (geographic coordinates) and orientation (direction of North, at least). Not pleasing the eye due to lack of colour. In short, very far from FP standards.
Alvesgaspar 14:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's boring and not featured picture material. --¿Why1991ESP. |
Sign Here 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for all the reasons given by Alvesgaspar above. However, thanks for making the map, it's an excellent addition to the encyclopedia but not FP standard -
Adrian Pingstone 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Please check the etiquette section of
WP:VOTE. Merry Christmas to all by the way. --
89.51.46.32 10:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Ooops, that was me. --
Dschwen 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think the users above have adequately identified what needs to be done to the image to make it FP material.
enochlau (
talk) 05:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It just fails to catch my attention like a featured picture should. It's just not as good as it could be. Maybe adding some colors would make it a bit less boring better. Merry happy
ChristmaChanuKwanzaDan :-).
Ilikefood 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Moderate oppose as per all comments above; only in full view can a viewer truly determine which is land and which is sea. In addition, I think that the fonts do nothing but hinder the image quality. As per Ilikefood's comments, perhaps a minimum of two colours, to help identify land and water, would help considerably. --
AltirisExeunt 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. The semi-official colors at
the semi-official colors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps would do wonders for the map. I also agree with the comments that the location names add little to the understanding of the map, but do distract from the story -- perhaps they should be in a lighter gray, or partially transparent. And I think that the movement arrows could be larger or snazzier such as used
on this map.
MapMaster 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply