Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tarvurvur

Ash Dunes near Tarvurvur Crater

Original - Volcanic ash dunes next to Tarvurvur Crater at Rabaul Volcano, Papua, New Guinea

Reason: Spectacular image. Saw this over at Commons and added it to the article. Excellent EV and good technicals, too.
Articles this image appears in: Rabaul caldera, Stratovolcano, Volcanic ash
Creator: Tarotastic (flickr user)

Support as nominator --ceranthor 00:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it could be added to more pertinent articles such as Volcanic ash, Tarvurvur, Stratovolcano and Dune to increase the educational value? The only one article that has the article is very short in length, so even with the very nice image, the EV does not look high at this status.--Caspian blue 01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that it's not well-used in the article and that it could be spread across other articles. upstate NYer 02:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wow. Durova³⁴⁰ 05:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added it to stratovolcano and volcanic ash. ceranthor 11:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not technically perfect, but I think it is easily worthy of FP status. A stunning photo. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful image, meets FP criteria. ~ Arjun 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose When looked at this with a lower res and speaking as a geologist, it looked amazing, a truely fantastic image. But when you look at full res the technical quality is just way, way, way too low to support this as an fp. Sorry dude. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you're mentioning. I see some minuscule areas where its not sharp, but they're not the focus. ceranthor 21:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Seddon. This is overblown all over the place, and none of the image is sharp. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too interesting to oppose, but yes, blurry. Much of the loss of sharpness comes from the bright light and reflective surfaces, although the smoke is horribly out of focus. Nezzadar ☎ 05:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quite nice but significant technical problems, chiefly that large area of blown sky is unappealing at anything above thumbnail and going on the horizon it has a significant tilt. I would suggest there's more impressive images of this already on Commons so wouldn't say that aesthetics or EV are enough to compensate. --jjron (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per jjron. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Jjron and Seddon makes good points; however I can't oppose this one - it is too good to oppose. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Nezzadar [SPEAK] 05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I voted neutral on this, which should not disqualify me for COI reasons since neutral is essentially the same as commenting. If my assumption is incorrect, please contact me at my userpage.