Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Geography by Ptolemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Geography by Ptolemy[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2013 at 04:58:05 (UTC)

OriginalGeography by Ptolemy, Latin manuscript of the early 15th century
Reason
Exceptionel document: complete manuscript of 454 pages. This book was the reference of the known world in the Roman Empire. Its rediscovery in Florence around 1400 lead to a new interest about geography, finally leading to the travels of Colombus and Magellan. This copy of the Latin translation by Jacopo d’Angelo was commissioned by Guillaume Fillastre, cardinal of Saint Marc, and the book bears his arms. This unique examplar includes 27 maps by a Danish cartographer, Claudius Claussøn Swart. The Geography by Ptolemy is probably one of the book who has the most influence over the whole human History.
This should be considered like a set, and judged on the merit of the whole document, not only of the tumbnail, or of one page.
Articles in which this image appears
Geography (Ptolemy), Ptolemy, Giacomo da Scarperia, Claudius Clavus, Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy
FP category for this image
History, Geography, Maps
Creator
Claudius Ptolemy, Latin translation by Jacopo d’Angelo, maps by Claudius Claussøn Swart, scanned by the Library of Nancy, DJVU file made by Yann
  • Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this is ready for FP, I really do... I just wonder if DJVU is the most user-friendly format out there, particularly as we allow PDFs as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • DJVU is the best format for long scanned documents. It allows including a text layer and it is smaller than PDF. A PDF with this quality will be about 80 MB while this file is 24 MB. Yann (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The text layer... is it used here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
        • No, this is a manuscript, so it can't be done by an OCR software. Yann (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is an interesting concept, and we should promote such quality scans. As such, I don't mind the resolution (a little on the low side). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Useful. JKadavoor Jee 17:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very cool, but am I missing something? It appears the resolution is far, far below our standards. Many pages are barely legible. Mattximus (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The resolution issue is, in my opinion, made up for by the fact that this is a full scan of a manuscript. However, I agree the higher resolution would be preferable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support looks great, would also prefer higher resolution. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. If it were being used to illustrate illumination, I could see it (but for that, for such a long manuscript, we'd want interesting illuminations on every page). But if it's illustrating the manuscript, the text should be readable, particularly since in this case the script is a pretty clear one, so it could be readable. Chick Bowen 06:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)