Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tadrart

Tadrart edit

Original - Tadrart Acacus desert, Libya

Reason: Looks like an excellent image with the clouds and landmark and seems high quality
Articles this image appears in: Tadrart Acacus, Orographic lift, Wave cloud
Creator: User:Pir6mon

Support as nominator -- The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This nomination was incomplete...It was transcluded to WP:FPC at 19:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Featured on commons, appears in several articles with moderate-to-high encyclopedic value. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. That is a superb image. Some of the darker areas are hard to make out, but overall this is an awesome scene.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Shooting against the light is a bad idea photographically so it is a poor illustration for the landscape. Although the wave clouds are somewhat redeeming the composition is too landscape heavy for it to be an effective illustration of the clouds and I like File:Wave cloud.jpg much better --Fir0002 05:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - compare it to the other image in Tadrart Acacus which has an awesome composition. By comparison, the composition in this one is just "nice", with unpleasant fringing on the left of the central column, and very noisy shadows. Looks pretty good in thumbnail, but not so good at full res. No qualms about shooting into the sun, other than that it has caused those effects. Stevage 08:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fir. A lens hood would have helped. Zoo Fari 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - there are issues with fringing and noise, but the problems are not huge and (IMO) are offset by the composition and atmosphere; EV is there in any case. Matt Deres (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, the main subject in the picture is "clouds", so I think its EV is quite good.--Caspian blue 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested to know how you determined the clouds were the main subject given that it's not even mentioned in the caption and until today didn't appear on the image description page... --Fir0002 09:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, viewing and anticipating differ from people to people because people's evaluation is subjective. At first, I saw the image, all I thought of "the clouds", not the whole scenery, I also have seen "dramatic images" taken against lights by professional photographers for artistic values, so I could not agree with your opinion.--Caspian blue 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but I think the caption could be improved; the clouds certainly ought to be mentioned since they contribute a lot to the EV. Time3000 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fir. It's niether one thing nor the other. I can kind of see why it was featured on commons, where the image itself is all that matters, but actually image quality isn't that hot either. --mikaul^talk 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with comment (only comment). - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__Ξ_} . -- 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Wow, I wish i could be there. Very good, but as Fir0002 and ZooFari said, it could be not dark (just a bit) and a lens hood would be helpful. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__Ξ_} . -- 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant to post this yesterday, but I guess I forgot to press "Save". Would anyone with image-editing skills be willing to lighten up the dark areas just a tad? That seems to be the principle "Oppose" reason, and at full-resolution the detail is apparent, so I don't think it needs too much editing (to keep from violating the spirit of FP). -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support image has strong visual appeal and is very useful to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image quality seems to be lacking and the arguments brought by Fir0002 are extremely compelling. By raw numbers, this nom gets 6.5 S/3.5 O (65%): borderline, but I feel obligated to not pass this due to no consensus. --wadester 16 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]