Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Canada provinces evolution

Canada provinces evolution

I wanted to get input on this; having seen another animated map on FPC, I wanted to know if this was remotely FPC material. And in the quest for excellence, I wanted to know if anyone had suggestions on improvements, like adding other countries and such for context, though personally, I think that might distract from the map itself. I also wouldn't know what to color foreign lands, since brown is taken. Maybe I should just add little lines, like around the coast of Maine, just to indicate that there is something there. Or maybe I should make them white, and paint the ocean blue?

I have a similar map of Australia completed, and I am presently working on one for the United States (and as far as I can tell, no one has ever made step-by-step maps of the USA's border evolution). It's not in an article at present, though I am working on a "history of canadian borders" article to go with it, and the individual images, also available on commons.

• Nominate and support. - Golbez 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I actually think it's best left as is -- adding in other countries, with more borders, would be distracting. Is there a reason for the color choices, though? Not the most attractive, in my opinion. -- bcasterline • talk 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In thumbnail form, everything displays correctly, including the text (dates) at the bottom. When I click on the image to go to the image page, everything animates correctly, except for the text at the bottom, which overwrites without clearing the previous date. It's an illegible jumble by the time a few frames have displayed. I don't know if this is a problem with the animation or my browser, Firefox 1.5.0.4. -- moondigger 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a known issue with how Wikipedia thumbnails some animated GIFs. --Golbez 15:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misunderstood me. The thumbnail animates just fine. It's when I go to the image page, where the summary, licensing, etc are visible, that the dates overlay each other and become a jumbled mess. -- moondigger 16:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's still a thumbnail though, generated separately from the thumbnail on this page. The full version should lack any of these problems. --Golbez 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I really like it, but like bcasterline said, the colors could be improved. As for borders, I agree that they could be distracting, but they don't have to be there unless someone was unfamiliar with Canada. A revised version (colors) would be FP material in my opinion. --Tewy 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this image Ric36 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Golbez, first I must say that you have done some EXCELLENT work with your maps for Canadian, Australian and American territorial evolution. Bcasterline says the colours could be improved, but in my opinion they seem okay (especially since you use the same colour scheme across countries with pink for states/provinces, brown for territories and gray for other countries/British possessions). I don't think you need to add foreign lands to this map. You didn't need to do it for the USA series (well not really, anyway, you only coloured in land that is currently within the US as being "foreign" before it came under US control). So I think if you are going add foreign lands or coastlines and oceans then you should do it for the Australian and American maps. However, as Tewy said, it's not really necessary unless someone was unfamiliar with Canada. I do have a proposal for improving the Canada map however: add in the other disputed areas. Thus you can add in the Maine-New Brunswick dispute (in which case a "foreign" land would be shown in the form of northern Maine), the Rupert's Land-Northwest Territory dispute, the Oregon Territory disputes (if I remember correctly there were at least 3 of them), the Alaskan boundary dispute and the Quebec-Newfoundland dispute. Good luck on your USA and Australia maps and perhaps you'll do other countries in the future? Perhaps you may even add in the unincorporated territories of the USA as another series (Territorial Evolution of the United States and its Possessions?) and the overseas territories of Australia (Territorial Evolution of Australia and its Possessions?) and you could alway add more maps of Australia from the beginning of colonial settlement to the Commonwealth (the Pre-Commonwealth Era).72.27.59.131 08:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. I don't have but a few minutes here, but a quick response: 1) The Maine dispute was settled before confederation, so that couldn't be on this map. Same deal with Oregon Territory, I do believe. Remember that Canada didn't exist until after the US Civil War, when the US was almost at its final boundaries, save the Gadsden Purchase. The Newfoundland dispute ... I'd rather not have the whole of Labrador (save the coast) colored red for the entirety of Canada's history, also considering the fact that the later dispute was only over the southern border... it's a complex matter. And yeah, I do plan to add some recognition of the external territories, and yes, eventually, colonial maps as well. --Golbez 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the response. I had forgotten that those disputes had been resolved before Canada's formation (although the dispute over the San Juan Islands did continue until after Canada formed and involved Canada for about a year when B.C. joined the Confederation, but those islands are probably too small to be displayed on the map). Best of luck on the colonial maps and external territories. Afterwards you could always tackle other countries, such as Mexico and the Soviet Union (those 2 countries have pretty interesting territorial evolutions). Oh, and I almost forgot, Maps 1667-1999 - Canadian Confederation is another Canadian government website that has maps about Canada's territorial evolution (except this site includes pre-Confederation maps). You probably knew about it already (as I'm sure you know about The Atlas of Canada site) but just thought I'd throw you the link anway.72.27.59.131 04:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder: