Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina

This image is not only huge and good quality, but it has a lot of encyclopedic and historical value as well as being pleasing to the eye. Taken by NASA, it appears in Hurricane Katrina, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Nominate and support. - NauticaShad e s 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - detail and information are impressive, but stitching seams are obvious and quite frequent. Debivort 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think it's stitching per se -- it's probably something to do with the satellite's imaging sensors (especially noticeable in the upper right corner). Compare this to the existing hurricane FP Image:Cyclone Gafilo.jpeg which doesn't have these flaws. howch e ng {chat} 22:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful image, very important to have as an FP. I honestly thought this was already featured.--Chilifix 01:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. A significant subject, but the quality isn't what it could be for a hurricane image. --Tewy 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite impressive and generally cool. TheJosh 10:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historically important, generally high quality, impressive scope. I like that the shoreline has been added so you can see the storm does fill the Gulf from FL to the Yucatan. --Bridgecross 13:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unlike the image of Catrina, the clouds maintain their color and are distinguishable. Also love the perspective (simple is good) and the wide view of the shoreline.--Here T oHelp 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the processing artifacts are annoying. The apparent stitching which is most noticeable in the corners is an artifact of the NASA processing, the raw data is available here (large jpg) and is significantly distorted. We have many, many similar images available, (see commons:Category:NASA MODIS images of tropical cyclones). This one is merely average in terms of its quality, we should select the ones without significant processing flaws. In addition to this, the storm is cutoff (the rainbands to the east). The fact this is of Katrina doesn't offset the fact that there are better images of other storms available.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not centered, and overall quality isn't that good. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said anything about it having to be centered? In my opinion, it makes the composition more interesting. NauticaShad e s 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It isn't centered, but what can you do? The picture is significant when one thinks of what's going on while the picture is being taken. And it's visually impressive. Gracenotes ^T § 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Nilfanion. The quality is lacking compared to other images of other storms. --Core des at 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]