Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Everest 3D map

Mount Everest 3D map

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2020 at 01:50:32 (UTC)

**Original** – Annotated 3D rendering of Mount Everest and surrounding terrain based on data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center and Landsat 8.

Reason: This CC0 render is high-resolution, attractive, and shows the form of the terrain better than the existing 2D maps and satellite photographs. File:Everest-3D-Map-No-Type.jpg is a version without annotation, if preferred.
Articles in which this image appears: Mount Everest, Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions, 1953 British Mount Everest expedition
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: Tom Patterson, shadedrelief.com

Support as nominator – cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning to support, but there is a license review tag on the file page. Also can the image be positioned and sized more prominently on the article page? Bammesk (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem, the author's page states: "Terms of use: The maps on this page are in the public domain. You may use them any way you like, including modifying the content, digital and print reproduction, and selling them for profit. Consider these maps as yours. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Note: Can an admin or reviewer confirm the above and remove the tag? --Janke | Talk 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 12:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hidden at the bottom of the article. 2D on my computer. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;-) - but note that "3D" in the way used here is a normal way of describing a perspective view of a map... --Janke | Talk 11:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I gather that your opposition is due to the placement of the image in the article, and the caption used. ~~If these are changed, will you support it?~~ Is it better now? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's better now, but insufficient EV for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks amazing. Timwi (talk)
^^Weak Oppose The image is fantastic, but the usage is terrible. It's not even used at a size that the labels can be read. On Commons, this would be a clear support, but here, where usage counts, I can't in good faith do so: This is so buried that it feels like a mere afterthought. Even in the section "Context and maps" it's an afterthought to a much larger satellite image. I can't imagine anyone clicking on it and seeing it large enough to appreciate the detail.

It's 347px wide in this nomination, and that's enough to look prety good. In article usage, though, it's 220px wide in the article, and shoved in next to a 600px image-mapped satellite image thumbnail, which is clearly the main focus of the secion. We can have more than one FP per article, but this is, at best, a Dwarf FP: Like a dwarf planet, it doesn't count as a real FP because it does not dominate its region of space. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 01:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I didn't gather from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria that an image's prominence in the article is a factor and have thus made it more dominate the Context and maps section. Is that OK now? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the addition to Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions helps, as does the Context and mapping section revisions. It's enough to at least move to weak oppose, leaning weak support, which I believe moves this into passing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 11:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmglee: As for the criterion in question, it's not spelled out as this is kind of an unusual situation, but Criterion 5 requires an FP "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." - if it's buried in a sea of images, too small to make out, and other images are more obviously being used for the purpose it's meant to, it's not really adding value, or helping readers understand it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 20:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agree, EV in current usage is not there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: I noted on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria "helps readers to understand an article". I can't speak for others but the 3D-ness does help me to understand the elevations and routes much better than a flat map or satellite photo. What needs to be done to increase it's EV? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I added it to two articles [1], [2]. It relates well to the descriptions given. Per Janke, copyright should be no problem. Pinging @Adam Cuerden and David Eppstein: in case they want to reassess. Bammesk (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Everest-3D-Map-Type-EN.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]