Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg
- Reason
- The image is very eye-catching. The arc looks at first sight too fragile to be true. Of course, the arc is not the only feature holding it together as it is connected solidly under the water. I have seen many icebergs during a three months stay in North-West Greenland, but none as striking as this one. Even the locals found it to be something special. What is even more striking was that I have documented the wheathering of the iceberg during a period of one month. The wheatering process can be seen as other versions on the image page or here. As an informative note to the reviewers WP already has another nice FP of an iceberg with a hole, which you might want to compare with.
- Articles this image appears in
- Lead image in Water
- Creator
- Slaunger (talk)
- Support as nominator Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note that we already have the similar Image:Iceberg with hole edit.jpg featured. Mangostar (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, we already have iceberg with hole featured, but may I please remind you that we have two or more images of some other very similar subjects featured too. I do not see anything bad, if we had two icebergs with two holes as FP. Besides I really like the image by Slaunger much better than current FP taken by me. The thing is that Slaunger was able to follow the iceberg and his weathering for some time. It is a really rare set of images and IMO has great encyclopedic value. If community believe that two FP icebergs are one too many, I'd rather delist the current FP (taken by me) because the nominated image has bigger encyclopedic value and that's why Strong Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mila, those are very kind comments, and I thank you, but your photo is kinda cool too ;-)-- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, we already have iceberg with hole featured, but may I please remind you that we have two or more images of some other very similar subjects featured too. I do not see anything bad, if we had two icebergs with two holes as FP. Besides I really like the image by Slaunger much better than current FP taken by me. The thing is that Slaunger was able to follow the iceberg and his weathering for some time. It is a really rare set of images and IMO has great encyclopedic value. If community believe that two FP icebergs are one too many, I'd rather delist the current FP (taken by me) because the nominated image has bigger encyclopedic value and that's why Strong Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture commented above was much better quality. This photo, however, does not have that type of high quality. crassic![talk] 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom, though I wonder if some kind of poster or something could be made from your series of shots. This shot is good enough to be featured (IMO), but something that illustrated that kind of thing could really be something special. Too bad the face (or perspective) kept shifting; you coulda made one big-ass animated GIF with them! Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting idea with the poster. I will give that some thoughts and maybe a try later. The two first images in the set are from almost the same direction, but I agree it would have been neat if more photos were from the same camera location. Not easy to do consistently though as the iceberg also drifted between two different locations during the month I followed it. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support More appealing than its already featured brother, encyclopedic, technically sound, yada yada... faithless (speak) 06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly a fine photograph and an encyclopedic subject. Props to the nominator. Yet I don't see any unique informational value to upon comparison and the photograph that's already featured. Normally it takes a marked improvement to unseat a current FP, and the composition of the version we've already got appeals to me slightly more than this. That's no insult to this photo - just a comment on how high the bar acutally is. So although I'm sorry to come down against something this good, I can't quite support. Please submit more photographs on other subjects! DurovaCharge! 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Mbz. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support Significant and interesting picture however the other one is clearly of higher quality.--St.daniel Talk 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Matt Deres. SpencerT♦C 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per crassic and artefacts on RHS. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg MER-C 12:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
