Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Laguna Miscanti, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 25-30 PAN.JPG

Laguna Miscanti and surroundings

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2023 at 18:19:48 (UTC)

Original – Volcanoes and plains surrounding Laguna Miscanti

Reason

Bit of a borderline case given the aspect ratio, but this image does encompass the environs around Laguna Miscanti (more than the lake itself) very well. I was hoping to find an image specifically for Laguna Miscanti too, but it seems like each one has one section or another that's heavily blurred.

Articles in which this image appears

Los Flamencos National Reserve

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator – Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – Due to the aspect ratio (horizontal thinness), this image seems problematic as a Main Page POTD. Also, given the extent of territory shown, its features aren't particularly informative visually, despite the 25MB size of the file. – Sca (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think FPs must appear on the main page, though? YMMV on the informativeness, it does show the mountains and general landscape (desertish and sometimes flat, sometimes water-covered and sometimes with high mountains) of the area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Images promoted here as FPs all are theoretically eligible for selection as main page POTDs, but they aren't all chosen as such. Hence, my post above is a comment, not an oppose. The critical comments I made may be considered here on their merits. -- Sca (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. For the main page, they can use {{wide image}}. MER-C 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes they can, but images of extreme thinness showing large expanses of space, such as this one, don't display very well. (Also, arguably, there's too much featureless foreground.) -- Sca (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – Main-page is not a FP criterion, so it's moot. It's not a FA or FL criterion either. Bammesk (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Promoted FPs are all theoretically eligible for selection as main page POTDs. -- Sca (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Main-page is not a FP criterion. Bammesk (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again, promoted FPs are all perforce eligible for selection as main page POTDs – so this issue isn't entirely moot unless the only thing one cares about at Wiki is what happens on this page. -- Sca (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It's moot when critiquing FP noms, FA and FL noms, because main-page is not a criterion. Featured content projects are tasked with reviewing and recognizing high quality encyclopedic content, then awarding (assigning) a star to such content [1], that's all, period. Featured content projects are not tasked with evaluating what should/shouldn't go on the main-page. What goes (or doesn't go) on the main-page is sorted out at the POTD and the Main-page projects. Those projects have their own guidelines, norms, and consensus (eligibility, suitability, etc). FP nominations are the wrong venue for rejecting quality content in order to benefit the main-page (as your critiques do). The same holds for FA and FL nominations. We don't ignore quality works based on what's best for the main-page. That's why main-page is not a criterion. That's why it's moot. Bammesk (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you quite sure about that, Bammesk? After all, the title "Featured Picture" is taken from the main page's daily heading Today's Featured Picture. (See the Main Page if you don't believe me.) At Wiki, Featured Pictures don't appear anywhere other than on the Main Page. Period! -- Sca (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Read the one page I linked to above, here it is again: [2]. It says what featured contents are. Featured contents are "the best of Wikipedia". Wikipedia means encyclopedia: [3], it doesn't mean main-page. Main-page is not part of what makes or breaks "the best of Wikipedia". Again, main-page is not a FP, FA, FL criterion. About the rest of your comment, where FPs, FAs, FLs appear (main-page, signpost, home page of an educational organization, wherever) and where their titles come from (the main-page, vice-versa, or wherever) doesn't change what FPs, FAs, FLs are. They are what the following pages say they are: [4] criteria: [5][6][7] instructions: [8][9][10]. Bammesk (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you quite sure about that, Bammesk? After all, the title "Featured Picture" is taken from the main page's daily heading Today's Featured Picture. (See the Main Page.) At Wiki, Featured Pictures labelled as such don't appear anywhere other than on the Main Page. -- Sca (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sca, Yes. I answered it right above, starting with "About the rest of your comment....". Bammesk (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Parts of this image are excellent, but I can't help but think the left side of the image is really quite bad, especially around the lake itself, and the right side of the lake isn't much better. Admittedly, the image looks very good scaled down a bit (say [11]), but, practically speaking, the viewing choices aren't going to be that favourable to the image: Thumbnails are way too small, even on the file description page, and viewing it full size is not going to make this one shine. The only way to get a reasonable size is editing the width in the URL after opening a thumbnail - not very practical! I usually love Diego's stuff, but this one's a miss for me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 16:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• oppose It has stiching errors, saw at leeast 2, from up to bottom. Lake lost sharpness in both borders. --Petar Milošević (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)