Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/View from mcmillans lookout

View from McMillans Lookout edit

View from McMillans Lookout, Benambra

The spectacular view from McMillans Lookout in Benambra, Victoria. Clearly shows the effects of deforestation on the area

Support Self Nom --Fir0002 07:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great and encyclopedic photo. - Darwinek 08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another fantastic photo from User:Fir0002. --S0uj1r0 10:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I little bit too much grain for me, but the beauty and encyclopedic value of this image outweigh it in my opinion. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Nauticashades et al. --Bridgecross 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)--160.79.219.133 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Looks like there is a lot of colour noise (colour blotchiness) in the shadow detail. The image is pretty but a bit generic and doesn't really contribute significantly to the article as there is an obvious cutoff in density but there are still plenty trees elsewhere. I don't think the deforestation here is quite as dramatic in scale or distinct as the aerial shot of Bolivia in the article (although obviously that image is not good enough to be FP either). A deforestation FP can do better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While this is indeed a lovely pic, I don't see how this shows deforestation. Honestly, it looks like a lot of the open spaces in California (wide swaths of grass punctuated with random trees). howch e ng {chat} 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because if this weren't touched by humans, it would be a huge sclrophyll forest. You can see the forests on the mountains in the background. It hasn't lost a little bit of density, it has lost almost all of it. It is useless to most forest wildlife now. I wouldn't compare anything like this to California, what you described was probably forest at one stage as well. --liquidGhoul 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't doubt that the area was deforested, I'm just saying that it's really difficult to tell from this picture. Perhaps a before-and-after comparison would work better (not that that's possible). Or maybe a picture where the line of demarcation between unsullied-by-humans area meets the deforested area to see the contrast. Otherwise, there's nothing to suggest that it's not naturally like this. howch e ng {chat} 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Man! How many of your images are featured? Geez im jealous. Anyway, I kinda support, it but I don't know where in an article you would use it. Koolgiy 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow, deforestation sure is beautiful! Kaldari 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is a bit grainy.. at least in the sky, but not so bad. I know how it is, its almost impossible to completely eradicate. And.. it almost looks like the deforestation is happening from right to left.. like there are far fewer trees on the right, then you get patchier with dead stuff, then thicker with alive stuff. It's like its happening as you watch.. nice! Also, I think I used to think you were like 12, are you 17-18ish? The Year 11 stuff in your userpage probably threw me off, I'm used to junior, senior, etc drumguy8800 C T 07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a 17 y.o --Fir0002 10:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Impressive. | AndonicO 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The colour of the sky is just unnatural. I have never seen before a sky which changes colour so dramatically in a photo. Near the horizon it's reasonable pale, and at the top, extremely blue. chowells 10:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sky looks fake, photo is pretty but has little encyclopedic value. This region/spot of the planet is already way overrepresented here anyways. --Dschwen 09:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impresive image, nice job User:Fir0002. Hello32020 12:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chowells and Howcheng. -- Moondigger 13:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 6/4.5 NauticaShad e s 07:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]