Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyrocumulus clouds in Yellowstone

Pyrocumulus clouds in Yellowstone National Park

Reason: High EV, great quality and not a bird ;)
Articles in which this image appears: Pyrocumulus cloud; Yellowstone National Park
Creator: Mbz1

Comment As usually any help with the caption will be appreciated.
Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the caption a quick clean. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be too much orange in this picture. I accept that the cloud should have an orange tint, but the whole picture seems to. Is it meant to be like that? J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me with caption. I addressed the color issues in the edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw important spelling error in caption - you have stated that the fires are started by Lighting which I assume is wrong - did you mean Lightning?? I don't want to edit as I'm not 100% sure what you wanted to put... Gazhiley (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty close to 100% sure that lightning is what's meant, so I've changed it, but please revert me if I'm wrong. --Avenue (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to jump on the "comment" bandwagon but I recognise this picture - in fact I'm sure I voted on it before... Is there a prev now for this? Just out of curiosity... Because I'm sure it failed before but seems to be the same pic nom'd again... Gazhiley (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes: previous nom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problems of the last nomination are gone now.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - indeed they have, and thank you PLW for locating the prev nom Gazhiley (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 I supported this before, although only a weak support... As Mbz1 has pointed out those issues have been taken out so now full support... Gazhiley (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You say 'High EV', Mbz1, but you don't explain how it has high encyclopedic value or in what context. Care to elaborate? Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the image is used in two important articles: Pyrocumulus cloud and Yellowstone National Park. It adds EV to both of them. In Pyrocumulus cloud it depicts not just one, but few clouds, and is the highest resolution image of the phenomenon. In Yellowstone National Park it is used in the section that describes wild fires that are common in Yellow stone. I hope I answered your question. Please ask more, if you have some.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support it has EV for at least the clouds article. --Muhammad(talk) 15:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. Has good EV in the pyrocumulus article, where it is the only photo showing multiple clouds forming. --Avenue (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What appears to be an aggressive highlight reduction makes the sky look dramatic but unrealistic. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all the comments listed above, and also because I it successfully in he.wiki. A very good picture indeed. Broccoli (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noodle snacks. The Utahraptor (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's massive wildfire is going on. The sky looks dramatic. Please see here File:Pyrocumulus Cloud Station Fire 08312009 Aerial View.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Noodle snacks. Factsontheground (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Factsontheground and Mbz1 have been engaged in bitter editing disputes for weeks, and are still actively in conflict. This is Factsontheground's first edit at FPC. --Avenue (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right. Just a minute before factsontheground opposed the nomination the user left that message at my talk page. Still I see some positive developments here. After I complained about wikihounding, the user voted on few more FP nominations :) I hope the user will become a regular here, and it surely will be the time spent better compare to what the user is doing now :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting, rare and nice quality --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me this has a genuinely high EV and I agree with George --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noodle snacks, mostly. Two versions here plus two versions in the previous nom, all of them fairly different, make me wonder what this scene really looked like. I'm just not convinced that either one here is accurate. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: What Makeemlighter said, mostly. EV may be there, but it will also still be in the article, so I see no need to let EV thrust aside technical and post-processing concerns. Maedin\^talk 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Consensus is, again, not clear for promotion at this point. --upstate NYer 04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]