The picture is highly detailed, informative, and interesting. It's also SVG, which gives it scale independence. (I am not the author,
MesserWoland is.)
Support per nom. —Jared HuntSeptember 5, 2006, 21:04 (UTC)
Support Wonderful diagram. One thing, the North arrow seems to be missing a line? Not a big deal, it is very encyclopedic and easily read. The SVG format makes it really groovy in my opinion.
HighInBC21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Very informative. Capital letters may confuse what are official titles with what are simply descriptions. One problem: is "Sphinks" a typo? —
BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-05 23:15Z
Oppose until minor problems are fixed, such as: Ugly typography (yes, needs Capitals in some Labels), Sphinks/Sphinx inconsistency in spelling. Otherwise, great image, very encyclopedic indeed. --
Janke |
Talk06:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Temporary Oppose. "Sphinx" and not "Sphinks" is the usual English language spelling. Also (and this is a question, rather than an objection) from a design perspective, is this west-top orientation preferable to the more conventional north-top orientation?
Spikebrennan14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)reply
strong oppose. Will change to weak support IF BOTH spelling is corrected AND cpitalization is completed and fixing te Norht arrow shouldn't be a problem while you do that.. I would prefer if numbers were used with an integrated key. Would give strong support to a version with that, capitalization and correct spelling. The words going in all directions confuses me and is difficult to read, especially on a computer where I can't rotate it to be righted.
say198816:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The shading on the lightest sides of the pyramids is too close to the background shading, so the 3D effect is largely diminished. Titles of objects should be capitalized according to convention. The more prominent features should be labeled with heavier fonts than some of the features of lesser importance (the eastern cemetary label is currently heavier, larger, and therefore appears more prominent than pyramid of Khufu label). Also, if possible, the image should be rotated so that North is at the top. It's a cartographic convention and the orientation of the pyramids is significant.
Justin16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, possibly strong support, if above comments are addressed. However, I'm not sure if the orientation of the map should be corrected or if it was intended to be that way for ancient Egyptian purposes (star alignment) (I have little or knowledge on the subject, so I cannot honestly say which is better, but I obviously prefer the "correct" version). --Tewy00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Most of the previously mentioned issues have been cleaned up. Image provides good perpective on different elements of a famous site, and how they sit in relation to each other. Informative, encyclopedic. Would change to strong support if there were a little better contrast between colors. --
Bridgecross19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Giza pyramid complex (map).svg Most of the oppose votes were because of errors in the diagram which were fixed after they were cast. howcheng {
chat}18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)reply