Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:2006-1218hurricane.jpg

Hurricane Kate (2003)- Good pic.jpg

A tropical cyclone hurricane took in 2006 by Nasa

Reason: Outstanding quality, high resolution. Intresting, good detail, no blurring, really good colour, and even if it doesn't pass this nomination. It still is a good image. It certainly lacks no obvious faults, and it is as clear as crystal. This is the highest resolution avadible on the net.
Articles this image appears in: Hurricane
Creator: Nasa, uploaded by me Francisco Tevez

Full Support as nominator — Francisco Tevez 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent high quality image. The Sunshine Man 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We already have three cyclone FPs and this is not as good (low resolution, for a start). Look, for example, at Image:Cyclone Gafilo.jpeg. --YFB ¿ 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note- I think it looks better than the one you showed me, plus. This one meets the criteria, having 1000+ resolution on one side. --Francisco Tevez 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about Image:Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG and Image:Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg? The resolution requirement is a minimum guideline, not a free pass. All three of the existing featured pictures have more than three times the resolution of this one. --YFB ¿ 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does that make a difference? I don't think so, just let this go through. Francisco Tevez 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think so, so I'm opposing. "Just let this go through" is not really the spirit of Featured Picture Candidates. --YFB ¿ 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no information whatsoever about the hurricane/cyclone on the image page, or at the source. All we know about it is that it was used on a blog on December 18th 2006. With no information about the subject, this image is next to useless to Wikipedia. --YFB ¿ 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per YFB. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 19:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose Crop is too tight for my liking, subject is cut off, resolution is low. -Fcb981 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per YFB. Debivort 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 05:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - small, blurry, unremarkable. Pics produced by space agencies are usually so hi-res that the bar is pretty high for them. --TotoBaggins 19:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TotoBaggins, there is a particularly high bar here. The tight crop means poor scale and perspective, and full-on sunlight makes for low definition and detail. mikaul^talk 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheheh... have to agree about the full-on sunlight. We should get NASA to arrange for more overcast days in orbit ;-) --YFB ¿ 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The worst of it is, with the sun right behind, you always get the shadow of the camera appearing in the shot.. mikaul^talk 13:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No information on which hurricane this is or when it was taken Bleh999 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was about to comment about this, but I don't think alone it's a good reason to oppose...Circeus 00:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? How can we use this image in an article (that's another requirement for FPs that this doesn't meet, by the way) if we know next to nothing about the subject beyond "pretty twirly cloud". We don't even know where in the world it is, i.e. whether it's a typhoon or a hurricane. --YFB ¿ 01:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, there are other, more important factors preventing it becoming a FP, so that question is moot anyway. We already have at least one FP whose subject is not completely identified: we don't know the specific identification of Image:FlyingBugPollinating-Oct15-lighter-cleaner.jpg. Circeus 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says it's a syrphid fly, but I don't know if that's true. You can't really compare a personal pic of a fly pollinating a flower to a NASA image, this definitely had a descriptive caption when released by NASA and maybe even a higher resolution version, but we have no details about this image other than it's a hurricane.Bleh999 03:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It just isn't the good kind of featured picture, with the others like this, and its size. Sorry. Dreamy 01:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Stefan 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]