Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Chicago top down view.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Chicago top down view.png[edit]

The three-level streets in downtown Chicago, Illinois
sideways shadow giving a 3D-representation

Self-nomination. Used on multilevel streets in Chicago. I made it because I could find no map, commercial or otherwise, that accurately shows this street layout. I'd like any comments, positive or negative. I had hoped to get help on improving it from Commons, but FPC there is almost as dead as BSD.

  • Nominate and support. - SPUI (talk) 11:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a cool nd clear map. Circeus 15:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- BRIAN0918  15:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. More extensive comments on SPUI's talk page. —Korath (Talk) 18:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments and suggestions; I've made some changes to the diagram/map. --SPUI (talk) 19:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Suppport #1 original now. A clear and informative diagram of a very unclear and confusing area. —Korath (Talk) 22:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oppose #2 version with shadows. Good idea, poor execution. West-to-east level transitions (such at Lake St and Beaubien Ct), the rail on Wabash Ave, and address numbers are especially jarring. —Korath (Talk) 11:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a good diagram all right, but I fail to see how it fits any of the criteria of beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. Denni 18:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
    • "Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article." I could easily write a thousand words to describe what this picture shows. Anyway, I'm looking for suggestions for improvement - do you have any or is it your opinion that a diagram like this can never be a featured picture? --SPUI (talk) 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • See also Image:Mtl-metro-map.png, which is mostly an adaptation of the official Montreal metro map. Circeus 16:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, it may not be striking, but the informative factor wins it here. Mgm|(talk) 22:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - if anyone's interested in photos of this area, see commons:Multilevel streets in Chicago. --SPUI (talk) 01:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done. ed g2stalk 14:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose #1, (Support #2 below). Nicely done, but the most effective way to illustrate such an item is not with a 2d representation - a 3d representation or some 3d-ness to the image would be far more effective instead of a colour key. Enochlau 09:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It is represented three-dimensionally. The view is almost top-down, but angled slightly to offset the levels. In reality the different levels are directly above each other. If that is not clear from the picture, could you suggest a way to change it so that it is? — Knowledge Seeker 09:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very striking, very informative, beautifully drawn. Very worthy of FP status. Well done! - Adrian Pingstone 14:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have made an attempt at giving a 3D-representation by applying sideways shadow on the red and yellow levels. Perhaps this will satisfy Enochlau and make him change his mind. JoJan 14:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Eek. That makes it look like all of old LSD is a path, and makes the path crossing the river really hard to see. And the orange ramps looks seriously weird. Nice try (not in a sarcastic way), but... --SPUI (talk) 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed. I support the one with shadows added. What do others think? Enochlau 11:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt Crypto 23:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #1. Clear and informative. Junes 14:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #1 2nd one is not as good, first must have taken hours! --Electricmoose 17:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Chicago top down view.png #1 +10 / -2   ( #2 +8 / -2 ) -- Solipsist 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)