Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Manhattan Project clickable site map

• Oppose I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking us to review here. Is it just the .svg or is it the mapping? If it's the file only, well the map is pretty basic, standard stuff. Someone's just drawn a few circles and added some text to a fairly plain svg of North America that someone else drew, so I can't really see the "lots of work involved", even if though they do happen to be in the correct locations. As for the places, there's nothing in the caption or the image desription page to explain why these "selected" places are important to the Manhattan Project. In fact, one quarter of them aren't even mentioned anywhere in the article which lowers the EV considerably. Why only a "selection", too? Why not all? Additionally, is there a reason why four places are bigger than the others? Would a person looking at the image at FP, instead of via the article, understand why these places are highlighted? All I could see is that they're the ones written about specifically at the article. Finally, the colours have been altered from Wikipedia standard Map Convention guidelines for no apparent reason.
  If it's the image mapping you're asking us to review, I don't see as it really has anything to do with FPC or the even the file itself. The image map is just wikicode written into the article. It's fairly easy to produce an image map (I've done tons for Wikiproject Skyscrapers), especially with the toolserver tool. No special knowledge is needed; it's just a matter of clicking and selecting the correct places. Which brings me to the fact that the mapping is a bit "off". The clickable area for Berkeley is NW of the circle, NE for Monticello, and N of the Arnes circle, for example. The EV also drops when clicking on these links. One sixth of them have no mention of the Manhattan Project at all, so no further information can be gleaned by navigating away from the article. If the actual image was clickable somehow, it might be worth something. But it isn't, so it just seems like most other maps found on most other pages and it doesn't stand out to me. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback. Will think about it in detail later (late here). No probs with the oppose. Yeah, I mean review the gestalt. It's a functioning entity. I don't like the whole "follow the map color rules" and such, as I've had a map that was innovative and additive by deviating. But, of course if the colors look like crap...that's another thing. I'll check the locations, might be your resize that messed it up. Also, the issues with the followed to links. I do still kinda feel that their is an amzing body of work in that article and all the subarticles, even though the main article is FA and the subs often less so. Is there a way we could make the map itself clickable? Again, mega-props on the thoughtful analysis.