Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake Bonneville map

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lake Bonneville map

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2013 at 09:08:55 (UTC)

Original – Lake Bonneville (ice age, 17,500 ypb) and the modern remnants
Reason
Detailed map needed to understand a concept.
Articles in which this image appears
Lake Bonneville
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator
Fallschirmjäger
The map represents the area around 14.500 radiocarbon years (~17,500 calender years) before present. Yes accordng to the article the Pleistocene period was 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago, so towards the end of this era. So as it was only a few thousand years ago the rivers and coastline would not have changed drastically and would be the same. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The coastlines were further out at 20,000 BC. We should show that (maybe with a dashed line for present coastline) as it is an obvious feature. The exact boundaries are tricky and not known exactly (and would vary by exact time), but we can show the main concept. See [1] and [2]TCO (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The flood direction indicators are a little unclear at some points, particularly the east-heading floods, where it's not at all clear where the floodwater is coming from. Also, rough dating of the floods would help - perhaps a red-to-orange colour scheme? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified flood direction by adding labels for Sacramento river & Lake Tahoe, will add the coastline tomorrow. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Fallschirmjäger ✉ 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not perfect, but I'm not sure if anything can be with something this complex. It's a decent overview of a very complicated subject. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The EV here is great. I have always been fascinated by the Bonneville story. ceranthor 01:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Plenty of potential, but I feel in execution this could be that extra wedge better. So, for example:
  • I find the wide, white (same as the background) state lines distracting and a bit confusing on the second ground. Have you considered thinner, perhaps light grey lines? (The labels in that tone work very well.) I can see why the lakes are currently above the lines (although it looks a bit odd - particularly the one over the national border), but if they were thin enough then they could potentially go underneath.
  • These border lines are rounded where they join other lines. Are they in the SVG as lines? or areas missed out? In any case, they shouldn't round like they do.
  • The state border lines also run under the national border, which I don't see the value in.
  • Have you considered shading the sea as well, so the rivers more clearly flow into it and are visually tied to it?
  • The national border with Mexico isn't explained
  • It is impossible to see anything under the ice sheet - I would accept either making them clearer, or removing them.
  • Why is the ice sheet labelled when it is in the key?
  • Based on the size, I assume it's an ice sheet, which makes reading glacier a bit odd, particularly when it means putting "ice/glacier" in the key.
  • As I understand it, the ice sheet is receding. If that is correct, could we show this? It would help the reader understand what's happening here.
  • I think the Sacremento river is the thing underneath the label, but this could be clearer
  • They are described as "modern" lakes but "present day" coastlines. Modern in this context could mean a wide period leading up to day, I think, thus adding to the confusion.
  • I don't see the value in the Mexican and Canadian state/territory borders, since they are unaccompanied by labels. (Contributes to the overall effect mentioned above).
  • If the "Scablands" are "unique geological erosion feature" as our article suggests, can this please be clarified?
  • I'm showing my ignorance of US geography here, but are the rivers mark modern day or pleistocene rivers (or both - one tracks the state line?)
  • Is the North indicated definitely North? It looks as if once we get to the left-hand-side of the diagram at least north curves to the right because the projection does not keep a consistent north. Could you check? The North arrow doesn't add much because we have a good sense of what we're looking at and so if there isn't a constant north it could potentially be more distracting than useful.
  • [It's spelled "calendar" by the way, on the description page. Would correct that myself but you've got to learn somehow :D]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, awesome commentary. I know how much work it is to look at something so analytically. I hope the judges will allow us a little time to work on the feedback. I agree with all of it. For Canada, I probably prefer to just get rid of the lines under the ice sheet because it is cleaner and doesn't hurt the article. I'm not sure what sort of graphic to show for the scablands. Just cross-hatching or some sort of cartoon-like wiggly lines? And here are some freaking cool Youtube videos showing the Scablands: [3], [4], [5].— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for taking the time to give such detailed feedback. I also agree with the points you have raised and will work through them asap. Kind regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 13:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I have implemented the suggested changes, apart from Scablands, not sure how to go about that as its a rather small amount of space to work with. Could add image map links. Thoughts? Fallschirmjäger ✉ 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspended to give the requested extra time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reset timer after editing was finished. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a high quality graphic. dllu (t,c) 03:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know that the voting period has already ended, but I am a bit put off by the placement of the inserts. I think that it would be much better if the insert box in the top left corner were moved over just a tad so that it's not on top of the coastline. It's at a sweet spot where the overlap is just the right size to be distracting. Obviously the box in the bottom left corner would have to be moved with it for alignment issues. If my knowledge of SVGs is correct, it would be a very simple change to add a tiny bit more ocean on the left side and move the two boxes over to the left a tad (preserving the padding), and if my knowledge of the FPC process is accurate, I doubt such a change would even require further review from FPC. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I've made it a tad wider and moved the boxes over. Thanks for the suggestion! Fallschirmjäger ✉ 11:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have only officially edited two maps in my life so not a specialist but the thing that struck me as odd here was the aspect ratio of the inset outline in relation to the map itself. The inset is right to be thrown into the sea somewhere but the complete map should be the same shape and position as the outline in the inset suggests which is not indicating enough area to the east and west. This is the first time I have looked at the Featured Picture page and it makes for interesting reading. Keep up the good work everyone. Idyllic press (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lake bonneville map.svg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lake_Bonneville_map&oldid=1090405265"