Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caucasus ethnic map

Ethnolinguistic Groups in the Caucasus Region

Reason: It meets 8 of the FP criteria I believe, and it would be difficult to show the diverse ethnic groups in this region in a clearer way
Articles this image appears in: Languages of Europe, Caucasus, Ossetic language, Ossetia, Languages of the Caucasus, Dagestan, Kalmykia, Peoples of the Caucasus, South Caucasian peoples, North Caucasian peoples, Nakh peoples, 2008 South Ossetia war
Creator: Pmx based on CIA map

Support as nominator --Thisglad (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good enc but legend is placed in a very ugly way, map & colors not visually appealing, furthermore, there may be inaccuracies, for instance: How come the southern part of North Ossetia isn't "sparsely populated" when all the neighboring regions are? Janke (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The data on population density appears to be identical to [1] which is a CIA map Thisglad (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support, I think this information is important to understanding, and has encyclopedic value, even on a meta-level. I vote weak because the data probably isn't entirely representative of the identifies of the people mapped, which can cause problems. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Encyclopedic value, but agree with Janke (talk · contribs) that the legend is a bit obtrusive. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Because of the legend. Maybe a single column on the left would look better? But then the source map would not have data for the area under the legend. No reason to doubt the data. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per invalid SVG. I use the template to check validity. I see many of the problems are with sodipodi / inkspace additions which are not W3C standard. I would be happy to hear people's opinions about this... whether this is a good reason to oppose, etc. I have not fully decided but I think we need a discussion about SVG validity because it is an important issue since it will change how they are displayed. gren グレン 05:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed problems in full-size rendering, too - missing legend text, for instance. --Janke | Talk 07:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:SVG Help to discuss this in general). Janke, which browser are you using? The Media Wiki SVG plugin is different than Firefox's so I have noted some differences... so this isn't necessarily a validity issue. Last time Image:Mahuri.svg was up for FPC, the blurring around the tree appeared in MediaWiki but not in Firefox--now it appears in both. And I've only seen SVGs rendered with Media Wiki (RSVG?) and Firefox yet there are many more platforms. I struck my oppose because looking through the invalid code I only saw sodipodi / inkspace references which I assume are extra things... I really don't know... but, I am sure some people write / some programs code bad SVG code and we do need to be wary about this since it is a markup language and not a binary like PNG/JPG/etc. Bad code could make it look different on different browsers just like for HTML... but, it could also be bad browser implementation. I'm sure this is an issue we will get to revisit again and again. It's a little frustrating that the sodipodi / inkspace tags are invalid (especially if they aren't big problems) because it obscures bigger problems we should be catching with the validator. gren グレン 08:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Firefox 2.0.0.16, Mac OSX --Janke | Talk 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend upgrading to Firefox 3 (for many reasons but also) since it has more full SVG support. gren グレン 22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am guessing that a lot of the grey territory in the lower right side of the map consists of Farsi-speaking areas. Why not expecifically indicate this as such (and add the language to the caption)? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus. The SVG problem seems to be fixed, but can I encourage people to explain things such as when edits are uploaded and why they change their vote; other users are discouraged from contributing and consensus is hard to determine when things aren't explained. --jjron (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]