Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916

Map of the Battle of Jutland

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2013 at 16:19:52 (UTC)

Reason: A SVG conversion of a US military source, with much better aesthetics (if there are things to iron out, I shall do so). Also has some of the oddities of the original removed, including some odd spellings.* Strong EV; I would say "very strong" except there are alternatives (some of which lack sourcing information).

For example, I mistook (as I expect readers would) the black line above Kiel on the original as the Danish-German border. It is, in fact, the Kiel Canal, which the new colour indicates.

Articles in which this image appears: Battle of Jutland and a dozen others about individual ships that took part in the battle.
FP category for this image: Maps and Diagrams
Creator: Grandiose from a US Military source

Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the average state of maps on Wikipedia, I think this is easily amongst our finest work in this field. Support, barring the discovery of inaccuracies, or other significant issues. One suggestion, though: If you used an icon to indicate a sinking, it'd be more instantly clear what happened in some of the engagements. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, provided someone who knows a bit about naval history takes a look at this and is happy with it. I'm not really sure how these kinds of diagrams would normally be presented. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It got some comments when I posted about it here. That was before I made the latest round of changes, but may be of interest. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mostly commenting on graphics: (a) I find it confusing to see "1530" instead of "15:30" or "3:30pm", (b) probably no need to repeat "Battle of Jutland" 3x and the the North sign 2x; (c) the dot for London is missing, and Oslo could be marked on the map to help orientation; (d) For the main map, if the land area controlled by each side would be shown with different colour (and maybe occupied territories with a hatch) than it might be clearer it's a war map, and make the main map more interesting; (e) In this map appears, as in the article, that the German ships started from Wilhelmshafen, but that is missing from this map. Also in the linked map is listed how many ships were on each side, which is useful. --ELEKHH^T 10:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "1530" format is fairly standard for military reporting of times. I don't mind the repetition of the captions - I rather like it, truth be told - but think the city dots are a good idea, and the colours and numbers are a good idea. Though I suspect poor Grandiose may find him- or herself having to renominate after the feedback's dealt with. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ (for the moment), Wilhelmshaven and other important or major cities in Germany are missing and the position of the Jade Anchorage is greatly imprecise. Its not north of the east frisian islands but within and directly north of the Jade Bight. Furthermore is there not a single scale, the most important thing in every map. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded - Jade Anchorage removed in favour of Wilhelmshaven; new source for that and passage between there are outside the mined area. Scale added to the upper right panel; "the most important thing in every map" sounds distinctly like my old geography teacher. The left panel has contextual detail that gives a very good sense of scale; I have used some trig to give me a scale in the top-right panel. That just leaves the bottom-right but I don't see as a major issue. I'm considering if the number of ships involved can be added without cluttering the map. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have you thought about include country borders and maybe colours for the territory controlled by Germany and the Entente as well as neutral powers? For the cities, why are there so many cities in the UK but all major industrial cities on the continent you could use for scale are missing? Another thing is, you should think about how you can mark the difference between admirals and ship names. Thats a little confusing. --Bomzibar (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do recognise a lot of the cities in the UK as major military bases. Folkenstone, Plymouth, etc. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Manchester isnt a coast city and as such no naval base. Furhtermore, the city-dot for London is missing and werent the actual areas where the fleets were stationed the Cromarty Firth and off Rosyth? The map should be precise with this. --Bomzibar (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The omission of London is of course a mistake I failed to correct, and have now done so. Ship names are in italics, although it the reader might not realise that Hipper and Scheer (which would, confusingly, go on to be ship names!) are Admirals, until compared to, say, Indefatigable, at which point most I think would realise. The fact that Scheer or Jellicoe are Admirals is the most likely reading of all three panels, and if this is not clear, it should be from the surrounding text: images should not present textual information under current guidelines. As regards cities and towns, very few directly contributed to the battle of Jutland itself, that much is clear. So the rest is the exercise of some discretion as to which of many are relevant to the reader; in doing so, I thought it was best to stick with the source. I added Wilhelmshaven because it was essentially a clarification of "Jade Anchorage" in the original; I feel a personal choice as to which places are relevant would be less than satisfactory. As regards land borders, I think it might do more to distract the the reader than assist him or her. The map does not show the whole of the UK or Germany (as was); the map would presumably also have to reflect (presumably) not just the 1914 border but the line of actual control at the time of the Battle. I'm not sure this image is suitable for displaying that information. Besides, reading the sources linked I'm not convinced it was a major factor. Having said that, I'm not wholly against: the historical context (i.e. the war rather than the battle) is important; however, it would mean colouring in the map I think, because the UK had no land border at the time. That could definitely detract from the readers' perspective. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]