Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2011 at 10:20:12 (UTC)
Original - Ice from the Vatnajökull glacier on the black volcanic shoreline at Jökulsárlón
Reason
High resolution, high EV (shows where the pictured iceberg came from (Vatnajökull)), good quality, good composition. Geo-tagged. Quality image on Commons.
Question: Icebergs are, by definition, in water, aren't they? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one got to there probably by water and then I guess it just drifted to the shore before it reached the ocean (there's a small river between jokulsarlon and the ocean which can be seen in the picture behind the iceberg)--Someone35(talk) 17:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more encyclopedic if in the water. As is, I'm not sure if it could even be called an iceberg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it demonstrates strong EV in any of the current article placements. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shows in both articles (Jökulsárlón and Vatnajökull) where the iceberg came from. Also the composition is good in my opinion and the quality is good too and it is geo-tagged--Someone35(talk) 11:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is no way of evaluating scale here. How big is this ice block? Could it be considered an iceberg if it were only a few feet high (or less)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's about a meter (3 ft) high I think--Someone35(talk) 15:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Language difficulty? It's not an iceberg then. Icebergs are very large floaty lumps of ice (sink ocean liners, that kind of thing). Describe it as a picture of the shoreline at Jökulsárlón - it seems to be a cracking picture of the extraordinary landscape. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, many questions as shown in discussion above. Pinetalk 08:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: changing the term to landscape doesn't quite cover it, as the focus on the ice block belies what it is meant to be. High resolution, but little EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do I change a picture's name? And Crisco, what demonstrates the connection between Vatnajokull and the icebergs in Jokulsarlon better than a picture of both the ice block/iceberg in Jokulsarlon with Vatnajokjull? Pino, if I'll change the picture's name from "iceberg" to "ice block" and add the size of the iceberg/ice block in the description, will it be good enough for you?--Someone35(talk) 12:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is on Commons, you need to use the rename template and give a suggestion, then wait for an admin or filemover to do it. Regarding the image itself, it would have higher EV if an actual iceberg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have pictures of icebergs too (such as the one on the right) this picture but there are tons of pictures of Jokulsarlon itself (so it won't contribute much to these articles because there's already a panorama made by a professional photographer there, do you think that picture will have a better chance to be a featured picture?--Someone35(talk) 13:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone35, you need a more poetic caption (although I fear it won't add much to the EV) "Ice from the Vatnajökull glacier on the black volcanic shoreline at Jökulsárlón" Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol, added it but how will it help the picture? and which one is better, the first or the second one?-- Someone35 15:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many issues, plus now FP wowfactor for me at all. JFitch(talk) 08:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What issues? The fact that I called it an iceberg instead of an iceblock isn't a problem-- Someone35 11:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
