Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Above the Clouds

Cumulus Mediocris clouds, as seen from the rear seat of an Airbus A320 at altitude over the midwestern United states.

Reason: This picture captures the essence of being above the clouds, and, being a direct picture of the clouds, depicts the clouds very well, conveying what they are in an encyclopedic and straightforward way. The picture contributes much to the cloud article, where it is the first picture in the article.
Articles this image appears in: cloud, weather, water vapor, sky, cumulus mediocris cloud
Creator: Kulshrax

Support as nominator — Kulshrax 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Image does provide a good overview of what clouds are. Doesn't have blown highlights, and shadows are ok; plus, its near impossible to say whether the image is soft in focus, thanks to the fact clouds are inherently fuzzy.Supaluminal 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that the lighting needs to be evened out, then I'll reconsider. SingCal 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I’m going to disagree with Supaluminal here — I do think that the image is blurry. It seems strange, since the exposure time was .001 s, but something just appears “off” about everything — either the picture is soft in focus, or looks like it has been upsampled. Also, there’s some banding on the left (darker) side of the picture, which seems a tad underexposed anyway (or maybe it’s just the airplane’s shadow; I don’t know). Either way, I’m still going to have to vote against it. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 09:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they look odd because they're so dark. Some levels adjustment might help. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Bad technical quality (focus, light conditions) and certainly not the best Wikipedia offers (it does not show any more than any one could see by looking at the sky).--Svetovid 10:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ~~nom et all~~ others. Thruppence 14:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

generally it makes no sense to oppose per the nominator. Debivort 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens! I feel like an idiot. My mistake. Thruppence 19:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just some clouds from out of a airplane window. Technically mediocor. -Fcb981 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks technical quality and is nothing out of the ordinary. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose though some levels adjustment might help make this a support. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above --Fir0002 02:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above. --Mad Max 03:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No encyclopedic value. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wasn't this just up for nomination? J Are you green? 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again. ^8thstar 06:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the last nomination it was a low quality snapshot. and now it is overprocessed too. --Dschwen 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]