Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2011snowstorm chicago

Winter storm 2011 Chicago Before and After

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2011 at 15:39:04 (UTC)

Reason: These two comparative pictures are a great documentation of the effects of the Jan. 31st-Feb.2, 2011 Winter storm in Chicago. They are high resolution perfectly framed shots that help anyone see the impact of this storm.
Articles in which this image appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_31%E2%80%93February_2,_2011_North_American_winter_storm
FP category for this image: Nature
Creator: VictorGrigas

Support as nominator --Ashstar01 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This looks like it was taken from inside a car. Although I suppose there are few people willing to risk their equipment/health for a picture, you've got that black area (the side paneling?) in the top left corner and snow on the car window. howcheng {chat} 18:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photos unfortunately just aren't technically FP quality. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe these photo aren't of the best quality (really, I have no knowledge about the technical side of photos/cameras, so I shan't say anything that even comes close to all of that), but in my humble opinion these photos do perfectly what they are supposed to do: show the difference of landscape that the 2011 North-American winter storm created. The difference between them two photos are enormous, yet anyone can easily recognise the fact that these two photos were shot from almost exactly the same point, simply by looking at the trees. Also a big pro for me: many photos include only a car stuck in the snow or something like that. These photos really show the effects: water was frozen, lots of snow has fallen, rubbish visibility. Anyhow, to conclude: I support this nomination. :) Robster1983 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, as above, the quality just really isn't there. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The educational/illustrative value is only one criterion. The photo also needs to come up to the mark in terms of quality (Wikipedia's best work?), and it's not such a unique shot that quality can be ignored. I came to this page wondering about how pictures get to be POTD, simply because I'm so impressed by the consistently high quality of those photos (or in some cases by their uniqueness). If this was POTD I'd be very confused. Tt 225 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, poor quality. --Avenue (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as previously stated, poor picture quality. The featured photo should not only possess illustrative value but should also possess high quality to help portray its illustrative purposes. sogospelman (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment This picture would have my support as a FP candidate and I feel is far superior technically and better demonstrates the subject:

Razum2010 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]