Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Second Punic War

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of pre-Second Punic War Mediterranean[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 19:25:48 (UTC)

Original – Map showing Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War and the theatre of the Punic Wars.
Reason
Verifiable map; admittedly in broad strokes but given the complexity of the relationships between Carthage and others and Rome and others it's useful to have a map that gives the general overview. Scalable SVG format; fairly aesthetically pleasing but more importantly quite a lot of information in it that would be hard to convey in any other form.
Articles in which this image appears
Second Punic War and Campaign history of the Roman military (contributes strongly); Roman Republic, Po Valley raid Battle of Utica (203 BC) (useful but not essential).
FP category for this image
Diagrams, drawings, and maps
Creator
William R. Shepherd, original; User:Grandiose SVG version and alterations.
  • Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The legend's breaking title is a bit cumbersome, is it possible to pack it into a single line and decapitalize "b" in "beginning"? Brandmeistertalk 20:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, without shrinking the text to amongst the smallest on the map, which looks exceedingly odd. I certainly could decapitalise "beginning" but I thought (and think) it makes sense to leave it in title case. It's of no great concern of mine, however, so I'll change it if others think that would be a good idea. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are the lines of latitude and longitude really necessary? They're more of a distraction than anything else (to me, at least). Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're useful in comparing this map to other maps and they're in Shepherd's original work; I'd be hesitant to remove them. I realise the viewer may be more familiar with where Europe is (and what scale it's on) than they were, say, with the map of Japan I did a couple of weeks ago, but I don't want to let that bias (maybe?) our international presentation. I faded them a bit when I made the map and that's something I can do a bit more if you're like. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Makeemlighter that those lines are distracting. Maybe you could make them lighter shade, and possibly removing the coordinate labels on two of the sides (or at least bottom, where anyway below the legend are of little use) might also help. --ELEKHHT 01:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update – given the above comments I didn't think anyone would object to fading the long/lat lines (and labels, but only slightly for readability considerations). If anyone does I'll revert and upload it as an edit. Makeem, Brand, does that work better? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, not a concern for me. Brandmeistertalk 17:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Elekhh and Makeem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, significantly better, although I still think the coordinates on both sides of the frame are too much. Also some of the labels unnecessarily overlap with the coastlines (Balearic, Corcyra). The two-way scale bar is a bit weird: I would delete the 100-50-0 part. And another detail: the Danube confused me a bit, as is not clear which one it is. I think Shepherd's choice to distinguish it from its tributaries by using a thicker line was a good one, worth to be replicated (it was indeed a major barrier at the time). --ELEKHHT 13:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made the suggested tweaks with the exception of the duplicate long/lat labels which are conventional so I reduced their fontsize instead (weren't visible in thumbnail anyway). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we have a thumbnailing backlog (or other issue); might just be worth waiting for a few hours before reviewing this set of changes (I changed the scale, gov, I swear!). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the servers are really slow. Only now I see some changes, but still not sure if I see the last version or the preceding one. In what I see, the Danube is wrong (as is shown running straight, instead of coming from north and turning east), but maybe is what you already corrected with the edit summary "Got myself confused there". Otherwise is looking good. --ELEKHHT 12:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't – but I think I've got it now. The version on Commons (if you click through) appears to be working. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all good now in this regard. --ELEKHHT 23:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a clear and high quality map Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very clear, high EV. Neutralitytalk 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are a number of unusual cartographic choices here. I'd recommend that consideration be giving to revisiting these choices:
  1. Why "Spain" rather than "Hispania" (given that we're using "Illyria", "Numidia", etc.)?
  2. The break-up of the "Mediterranean Sea" text label looks odd. The word "Sea" is all by itself, without an obvious connection to "Mediterranean" except to map readers who already know that it's regarded as a single body of water.
  3. The same type of text label is used for geographic areas (e.g., "Spain") as for mountain chains. Are these intentionally being treated as equivalent concepts?
  4. Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily are labeled in UPPER CASE ONLY, and the Balearic Islands are labeled in Mixed Case. Any reason for this?
  5. Some rivers are shown and named, and other rivers (including ones that are apparently of equal importance) are shown but not labeled. Was there a system behind this?
  6. A few settlements are shown and labeled but are neither within the Carthaginian sphere nor the Roman sphere. Were they truly in neither? Is there a reason that they had to be on the map?
  7. Is there a reason that the text labels for Rome and Carthage are unitalicized, in addition to being in larger type?
  8. L. Trasumennus, a tiny lake in central Italy, is the only labeled lake on the map. This is already a crowded part of the map- did it need a separate label?
  9. Some of the text labels (e.g. Agrigentium, Turdetanians, Umbria, Samnia) look uneven and a bit sloppy.
  10. What is Corcyra: an island? A settlement?

Spikebrennan (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer in almost all cases is that I copied William R. Shepherd's approach in the original, however, there are specific answers:
  1. Well, there's certainly possible confusion with the as-yet anachronistic provinces of the same name; the others don't have such similar modern equivalents. Not entirely convinced either way.
  2. I'm sorry but I'm unconvinced here. The reader is likely to think either there is a single body, the "Mediterranean Sea" or two, one "Mediterranean" and the other "Sea" – I think all readers would quickly abandon the second viewpoint. The break is common in other maps that include the Mediterranean (example) and it allows the text to be a lot larger.
  3. Well, they represent sweeping generalisations of area (like Illyria) of contextual rather than specific interest. I don't see a particular problem in grouping them together – I don't think, for example, that the reader is likely to think of Spain as a mountain range or even if they considered "The Alps" and area that this would be a problem;
  4. Yes – Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily were Roman possessions at the time and the Balerics were not. Specifically Sicilia and "Corsica et Sardinia" were Roman provinces at this time.
  5. Presumably Shepherd made the inevitable value judgment about which to label based on some measure of significance. Is this important?
  6. They were not in either to the satisfaction of Mr Shepherd. I've been unable to die down definite histories for all of them, although Numantia was definitely independent. As to why they were picked I assume because of their importance to the narrative in one way or another. I believe Marseilles allied with Rome during the war; Epidamnos important in a concurrent Illyrian war.
  7. Presumably because an increase in size was (and I believe is) insufficient to demonstrate that they has a special status.
  8. I think (and Shepherd presumably did) the Battle of Lake Trasimene warrants some location – the map is used in a role where that is useful.
  9. "Uneven and a bit sloppy"? Blame the SVG renderer; they are all single lines of text. Practically speaking there is nothing I can do; I find text at 90 degrees impossible to read and in these cases there wasn't space to have it horizontal. Of course FPC map candidates do their best to be aesthetically pleasing (it helps draw the reader in) but it's not of primary importance. See below
  10. It's the Latin name for Corfu, I've added a translation.
Hope this resolves most of the issues. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding (9.) SVG rendering, indeed is a pity that in the article some of the text looks really messy, and is not the small text but the larger one (i.e. Italy). Did you use only fonts supported by Wikimedia renderer? Another thing I noticed in article layout, is that a lot of space is lost for the margins (displaying coordinates) which at the standard 200px width makes the map even smaller. That would be another argument to get rid of some of the coords (up to you, and I promise this is the last time I'm suggesting so). Also generally maps should be without frame as they are framed again with the thumb display. Not sure what's the best solution here, taking it out or just making it thinner. --ELEKHHT 23:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in response I've changed the typeface – that isn't strictly true, I hadn't declared one (thus leaving it to your system and/or Wikimedia's) which ought to be correct procedure but in the circumstances I thought it est to deviate to a font that the renderer has. Unfortunately the rendering hasn't updated and you can't click through (yet). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update has now gone through on the Commons version. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support This is a well done map, and following several correction looks quite good at 1000px size. As I am not historian, I am simply assuming historic accuracy, as probably since the 1920s original there hasn't been any major discovery about that period. Unfortunately is not very impressive at the size displayed in the articles, although this might be related to the SVG rendering. I noticed this is a general problem with SVG maps, which at small size tend to look inferior to JPGs.--ELEKHHT 22:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Second_Punic_War&oldid=492970211"