Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Wilma 21 oct 2005 1625Z.jpg

Better Version of Wilma

Original - In this image, the storm eye is about to cross Cozumel, a small island just off the Yucatan Peninsula coast. Winds were peaking at 230 km/hr (145 mph) as the eyewall passed over the island, and hurricane-strength winds extended for 130 kilometers (85 miles) from the storm’s center. As of Friday afternoon, Wilma was projected to continue into the Gulf of Mexico, bringing powerful winds and heavy rain to both western Cuba and the Yucatan Peninsula before turning toward southern Florida. Florida residents have already begun to prepare for the storm’s arrival.

Reason: better version of Wilma, the strongest storm in the Atlantic.
Articles this image appears in: 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season, Hurricane Wilma
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great photo of the strongest storm of the 2005 season. I think this one has EV and AV. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is probably the best of the hurricane pictures up right now. Unlike some of the others, there seems to be a sort of sense of movement about it, a sort of "pop" that the others lack. Dr. Extreme (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, fails criterion 7 (adequate caption) and criterion 5 (adds to article) because it is not in any mainspace articles. If those are resolved, I'll gladly support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ineligible. Good pick up. Indeed this is not in an article, and was not in the listed article when nominated, if ever. Shoehorning it into something now is not good enough. --jjron (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to appear in at least one article and a caption before it gets considered for promotion. MER-C 08:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Honestly, this is just flouting our basic conventions if this is promoted. It's been nominated deceptively (as mentioned above it was never in the claimed article), and if not for the OTHER FIVE hurricanes that had been nominated in the couple of days before this, by this same user, people may have actually been bothered to check this one out. It's also a concern that all those that supported evidently never bothered to check the "encyclopaedic value", i.e., whether it was adding value to an article. Because it's now been shoved in somewhere and given a caption doesn't make things right, and is not how things should be allowed to be done. This just makes a joke of the process. --jjron (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agree with jjron, this doesn't even need a discussion the promotion was just invalid. That can happen, and we should quickly fix it. --Dschwen 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]