Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of the Olmec Heartland

Map of the Olmec Heartland edit

Original

With improvements suggested by some reviewers.

Reason: This map is not only beautiful, it provides an thorough overview of the geography of the Olmec heartland, the locations and relative size of the major Olmec sites, and the locations of other important Olmec finds. I wish all my maps did such a fine job of combining elegance and utility.
Proposed caption: Map of the Olmec heartland showing the major cities and towns (in yellow), and archaeological finds unassociated with settlements (in red).
Articles this image appears in: Olmec heartland, Olmec, Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures, El Manatí, La Venta, Mesoamerican chronology, San Andrés (Mesoamerican site), and Las Limas Monument 1.
Creator: User:Madman2001

Support as self-nominator Madman 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I seemed to have screwed up on the nominating procedure. If someone can straighten this out, I would much appreciate it.)[reply]
- I think I've fixed up the problems (and have left a warning note and redirect link on the duplicate subpage). --jjron 07:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ images must follow WP:RS and WP:V. If you can provide the sources to show how you made this map and that it is accurate then I definitely won't oppose--probably would support. gren グレン 10:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I have now added references to the map page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Madman 14:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I'll keep an eye on these to see if anyone gives me good ideas on how to judge a map before I comment. gren グレン 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice map, just not sure it's exceptionally nice. I'm struggling to see anything really outstanding beyond the clearly competent design. I'm finding that large white title box a little garish, although I realise it's part of a series. Wouldn't a key be better use of that space? --mikaul^talk 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor also mentioned the box-y title, so I have removed it. Hope you like it. Madman 14:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why is the label for the mountains in the sea? --Peta (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The label for the mountains is in the sea so as not to overlay/overwrite the detail of the mountains themselves, particularly the twin peaks and the lake (Lake Catemaco) in between. Since the mountains border the featureless Gulf, I thought people would still understand what the "Tuxtla Mountains" label referred (which you did, Peta). The Tuxtla Mountains were important for the Olmecs and I didn't want to obscure that if I could help it. Hope this helps, Madman (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I must say I find this map rather interesting and quite like it. However there is an error in the scale, and it's confusing. The 'k' on km should be lowercase, not uppercase in the abbreviated form - see SI prefix. When I say it's also confusing, I mean that the 25 at the end obviously relates to miles, but far less obviously to the km. I think I get that it's meant to indicate where the line at bottom comes out part way along means 25km, but it's far from clear. Unless I'm mistaken, scales using two measures would usually indicate the distance for each at the end of the scale or progressively along it (say 25 for the miles at the top, and 40 or whatever it is for the km at the bottom). The 'miles' and 'km' labels could then also be directly under each other. --jjron (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the scale was understandable, but not intuitive. I have changed the formatting of the scale to that used by Google maps. Madman (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Another query. One river appears to be labelled (though not called a river, I assume it's what the Olmecs called it?), but no other bodies of water are. How come? Also if you're using the exact Olmec term for that river, and everywhere else, should you also do so for the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., why is this one place labelled with modern parlance, but nowhere else is)? Should you perhaps have this labelled as such on the larger scale map in the box below, perhaps along with modern countries, and then the main map would be just in Olmec terms? --jjron (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally only labeled one river because that was the only river named in the Olmec article and the map was designed to help the reader identify placenames. However, now that you mention it, it does look a bit off-kilter, so I labeled the two other rivers. In keeping with the style used by my source maps, I didn't add "river" or "rio" to the label. This convention was likely developed to reduce the map-space needed to write the name.

To respond to your other concern, all the names are modern names – we don't know the language that the Olmec spoke.

Hope you like it, Madman (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I'm not very familiar with this area of the world; I guess what threw me is that all the names are Spanish, except for the Gulf (perhaps it could be labeled Bahia de Campeche, or at least subcaptioned with that, and maybe you should also use Sierra de los Tuxtlas rather than Tuxtla Mountains?). Unfortunately I can't find another map to verify all the names, but given there's been no complaints about accuracy after all this time I'll assume it's correct. I'm not sure about including the 'rios' (I'd be inclined to), and also wouldn't mind names on the lakes, and I think I actually preferred the title in the original. But for overall value, because I like it and find the Olmecs pretty fascinating, and compared to other featured maps, I'm giving it a... --jjron (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support (per above discussion). Preference for edit (but I like the title in the original - or at least the concept of it having a title). --jjron (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the second one. Fine work. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the second version, with or without the title box. Encyclopedic, subtle, and needed at Wikipedia. Oscar (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question was raised by gren, I jotted down some criteria that could be used to judge a map:

Is the map successful at providing information on the subject?? Does it contain the right amount of information? If the map contains large amounts of data, the data should be hierarchically arranged (e.g. by color or by size)†
Is the information presented in a clear and intutive way??
Is it factually correct?? Is it complete?
Is it useful in the context of an encyclopedia??
Is it attractive? Does it entice the user to examine the map further? Does it add an extra zing to the article?? It should be neither garish nor somber.
Does it make good use of the space? Or is the subject matter squeezed off to one side?
Is the map free of chartjunk??
Does the map contain a scale? Are references posted on the map page? If north is not straight up, a simple directional arrow should be present.

In terms of Featured-ness, I would ask: Is it in the top 1% of all maps in Wikipedia? Does it compare favorably with other Featured Maps??

Hope this helps, Madman (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

† Please note that there are different types of maps. Some maps are designed independently of the article and would find themselves right at home in a geographic atlas. These maps generally need to be opened in a separate window to read. Sting's topographic maps are a great example of this type.

Other maps are designed to work within a specific article, that is to identify places, movements, changes etc. mentioned in the article. This is the more traditional encyclopedia map. The components of this map should be large enough to be read without opening a separate window. This was the goal of my map above - something that the reader could refer to while trying to understand the Olmec milieu.

Promoted Image:Olmec Heartland Overview 4.svg MER-C 05:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]