Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular Rays in Yellowstone National Park

Crepuscular Rays in Yellowstone National Park

Wikipedia has at least three FP for crepuscular rays and at least one FP for Mammoth Hot Springs.So why am I nominating this image?I'm nominating this image because it is very unique, one of kind image which combines geology and meteorology.This image emphasizes that Mammoth Hot Springs are really hot by showing the crepuscular rays over the steam.

Yellowstone National Park; Hot Spring; Crepuscular rays
Creator: Mbz1

comment I could not avoid cutting the trees off. It was the only place the rays were seen. Here's another image Image:Dead trees at Mammoth Hot Springs.jpg which shows not cut trees, but it does not show the rays.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The image has heaps of noise in the sky on the upper left, it looks like you took to much effot to focus on the rays - however, Dead trees at Mammoth Hot Springs is good, and if you where to exchange this one for that, i would turn this into a "support". The thumb nail looks good however! --Amckern (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to say "the images"? Do you oppose both of them? The alternative is not the edit of the original. It is a different image. The subject of the images is the rays. The images were taken against th sun.I guess my monitor is not good enough to see the noise, but the images have lots of room for downsampling. The terraces and mountains are still seen very good and create a nice steamy atmosphere for the rays. The images are unique. I doubt very much that an image like this could be found on Flickr and/or at the NET and I believe that Wikipedia FP would benefit from displaying such an image at the main page, but whateever...--Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)04:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the comment before you uploaded the 2nd version, the alt version is a support --Amckern (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the caption text may be copyright violation. I'm not sure what the National Park Service's policies are, but straight copying from their website probably isn't the best way to do it. Thegreenj 15:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
National parks belong to US goverement, so IMO should be OK.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but in general it's still best to reword, or at the least, link to a source if you word-for-word copy public domain material. Thegreenj 15:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I will. First I need to learn from somebody, if it is OK to use that text at all. If it is, I'll link to the source. If it is not I'll change the caption.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the description to the site.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference to the alternative Encyclopedic for articles. Muhammad(talk) 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia is becoming a collection of crepuscular ray photographs - article has 3 FPs already and about twice as many pictures as text. If you wish to see this promoted for inclusion in crepuscular rays, please nominate for replacement of one of the existing FPs. Thank you. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - one of the largest efforts on WP Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crepuscular rays is not the only article this image appears in. It also appears in Yellowstone National Park and Hot Spring. Muhammad(talk) 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to oppose IMO, Papa Lima Whiskey. The nominated image is the only image not only at Wikipedia, but at the NET which illustrates crepuscular rays over steam. Besides, may I please ask, if you read the caption and the reason? The image illustrates much more than just crepuscular rays.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely valid. You chose to put it on the article rather than just put it in the appropriate commons cat, even though the article has hardly anything but images. It's basically the same as sticking it in a gallery at the end of an article, which always raises eyebrows. I might take a different view if you nominated the version without rays. Obviously, it wouldn't be included in crepuscular rays. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - composition is stilted and uninteresting. The cut off trees are really distracting and the rays aren't that great that an awkward composition can be overlooked. The sky is really noisy too. No wow factor here. I MUCH prefer the version without the rays you link to in the nom - as an illustration for hot springs. Would in fact support that as a FPC for hot springs - it succeeds everywhere this fails. pschemp | talk 13:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to support the version where the trees are not cut off. Yes, the rays are pretty but that one has much more value as a photo. --Arad (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the votes. I withdraw my nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]