Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Morocco Africa Flickr Rosino December 2005 84514010.jpg
A Commons Featured Picture of Erg Chebbi, a large sand dune field in Morocco. Photo by Rosa Cabecinhas and Alcino Cunha and licensed under CC-BY-SA. Also used in Erg (landform).
- Nominate and support original Flickr version. howcheng {chat} 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support very iconic image. Quality is high, and technical aspects are almost flawless.--Andrew c 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support A great looking photo! Ackatsis 09:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful!! --Midnight Rider 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, although JPEG artifacting is visible in the upper part of the sky and along the edges of the dunes. Gorgeous picture, though, but it would be even better if it weren't as compressed. SnurksTC 04:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, though the photo itself is excellent. From my point of view, it does not fully meet images that add significantly to article criterion. Moroccan Erg Chebbi area is famous site for birdwatching. At the end of winter, a temporary lake is formed there. I guess FP for Erg Chebbi article or for the main page of Wikipedia should capture this theme. JanSuchy 11:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- However, I believe it adds significantly to the Erg (landform) article, since the only other image in that article is a view of an erg from space. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support I think it adds to the article in that it gives a feeling of being there in a way words cannot describe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
*Comment I can't support a picture with so many JPEG artifacts. Is there any non compressed version? It'll be great to have a better quality. It is obvious that this is not the best photo we can have on this subject, as the original, non compressed photo of this image has better quality. Support Thank you for removing the artifacts. Good photo --Arad 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Groovy shot. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Suppport Fantastic photograph, deserving of featured status. Hello32020 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - superb photograph! - Alvesgaspar 11:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Original or Edit 1. The quality isn't perfect, but the original is a large improvement. Quite encyclopedic, though. NauticaShades 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I just noticed the artifact issue in the sky (I had noticed it in the distant lines of the wavy side of the foreground dune before). I wonder if we could still edit the original? The quality is superb compared to the originally uploaded photo, but I'm not sure what rights are reserved (see the logos at the bottom).--Andrew c 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I edited the original, using the same gaussian blur technique. NauticaShades 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I actually like the original flickr version best. The gaussian blur sky makes it look sort of blotchy (in the same manner that jpgs compress using nearest neighbor-type data, except this blotchiness isn't hard and square). Does that make sense? I feel like the level of noise is totally acceptable in the original, and because there is a lot more subtle color variation between each pixel, it seems like the 'noisier' version is more crisp, detailed, and the blurred version blotchy and compressed. But this may just be the way I look at things.--Andrew c 01:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I tend to agree with you. I put the edit up for consideration, though, as some people might prefer it. NauticaShades 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I actually like the original flickr version best. The gaussian blur sky makes it look sort of blotchy (in the same manner that jpgs compress using nearest neighbor-type data, except this blotchiness isn't hard and square). Does that make sense? I feel like the level of noise is totally acceptable in the original, and because there is a lot more subtle color variation between each pixel, it seems like the 'noisier' version is more crisp, detailed, and the blurred version blotchy and compressed. But this may just be the way I look at things.--Andrew c 01:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support original. Good composition and colors. And as Andrew c said, the other two are "blotchy". --Tewy 03:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support unedited Flickr version, oppose others. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Erg Chebbi.jpg --NauticaShades 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
