Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cartlinearlarge.png

Cartlinearlarge.png[edit]

Presidential popular votes cartogram, in which the sizes of counties have been rescaled according to their population. Created by Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman of the University of Michigan. Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ A really large version is also available.

Not only is it visually appealing, it gives a much more accurate view of election results than your standard red state/blue state map. An enlightening and thought-provoking piece. From U.S. presidential election, 2004, byJacoplane. - Deltabeignet 22:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. Deltabeignet 22:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I live in England and I have no idea what this map shows even though I've looked at it carefully. Maybe people in the US will understand it and vote for it. Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 07:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is suppose to be the US Electoral collage results on a county by county basis, but I am not 100% sure; therefore I oppose for the reason cited above. TomStar81 18:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me clarifiy: I oppose this picture because I am not sure what this map shows. TomStar81 22:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me ask you something; have you ever truly been 100% sure of anything? Deltabeignet 19:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, I'm 100% sure that I'm alive and that I will pay taxes. I used 100% in my oposition because I couldn't figure out what the picture was suppose to show even after I was on the page the picture was on. It wasn't until someone suggested this picture and the other illistration should be shown side by side that I figured out what the picture should show. TomStar81 00:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll agree to disagree on philosophical grounds. Deltabeignet 20:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Out of courisity, would it be possible to combine the other image above this one on the '04 election page and the picture here into one picture for a before-and-after kind of model? The key objection here seems to be that the image is confusing on its own, but if the two image were combined into one I think people would grasp the data represented in the cartogram better. I know I would. TomStar81 23:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've made something at Image:2004 election maps.PNG; it combines a standard state by state with the county by county and the cartogram.
        Thats much better at illistrating the US Election. I would vote support for that image. TomStar81 23:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite interesting, but I feel the US bias is rather too much for me, a non-US viewer. Brusselsshrek 18:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would hope all of these votes are invalid. The picture is about a specific topic. Should we ignore a photo of Big Ben because it is British in topic, or to continue the absurdity, ignore all photos because they are too biased toward their topic? At most, the caption could use a little bit more context telling what election it is for. - Taxman 16:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Support Relevant, innovative, and interesting way of showing accurate information. Not only does it illustrate the information about the relative support for the US presidential candidates, it also shows an interesting example of Information Design. Johannes Brodwall 22:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support- if you think there is a bias seek promotion of non-American pics don't oppose American ones. You must vote on this based upon it's illustrative value not its subject matter. Would you oppose featured articles candidates about American things since we allready have lots of American featured articles? I think not. Broken Segue 22:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Djinn112 03:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Visual is great, and food for thought. -- --Wpopp 14:27, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- Can I make it clear I opposed the pic because I simply don't understand what it shows. It doesn't matter where I happen to be (in this case England) and it doesn't matter which country it's a map of . If I don't know what it is then I guess many other readers won't either. My vote is entirely valid, but I do agree that Brusselsshrek comment is invalid! - Adrian Pingstone 16:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Adrian, I suppose the picture shows "real" voting power of the different US states. Maybe we should ask the author to do the same for European Union states to make clear the impact of population (as opposed to political negotiation). The picture in itself doesn't mean much, but it could mean a lot if you oppose it to another map showing the influence of the states related to their votes in the electorate college. --Wpopp 00:33, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Oppose - Not visually appealing. if you didn't know what the US was supposed to look like normally (like a side by side might do) and/or you didn't already know what a cartogram was, then it is a sploch of blue and red. this pic in no way stands on its own accord.Cavebear42 18:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is a tricky one because it is quite an attractive and interesting image. The problem is that is also quite confusing and doesn't tell me much. The map at the top of U.S. presidential election, 2004, tells me that red won and it was the South and Mid-west that voted Bush in. But this is a distorted view because the states count by the given number of electoral votes not their geographical size. Hence a cartogram should be a good idea, but it should be one based on states and hard red/blue first past the post results like this. This one fails, because it goes down to county scale and then colors on a percentage of the vote (ignoring 3rd parties). We end up with an image that looks like it should be a 3D scan of a body organ; it is almost unrecognisable as the US, and only tells me is that everywhere is kind of purple, so the election was closer to 50:50. This image is also a poor choice to illustrate cartogram where a version of the world map scaled by population would be a more typical and understandable illustration (guess what I'm going to look for now.) --Solipsist 06:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support You shouldn't vote against the picture just because you personally don't understand it. If people still have questions, ask the nominator on their talk page. Don't clutter this area, and don't vote before understanding the topic of the picture on some basic level. Superm401 | Talk 21:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense! Are the readers who may see this pic going to ask questions in order to understand it? NO! They just expect that the pic be understandable by reading the article or the Image Description page. I didn't understand it by reading both. Finally, I'm certainly not creating clutter by explaining why I opposed the pic - Adrian Pingstone 13:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Couldn't have said it better myself. TomStar81 23:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why nominate a low-resolution image when there's a larger version? —Korath (Talk) 23:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Not promoted +6/-6 Broken Segue 03:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]