Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mammoth Hot Springs

Mammoth Hot Springs[edit]

I nominated this image because it is a beautiful picture that passes the FIC criteria; This image appears in the article Geothermal areas of Yellowstone created by Jon Sullivan -- SOADLuver 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Jon Sullivan is a Wikipedian. howch e ng {chat} 22:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - SOADLuver 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- I am in love with this photo! Wish it were a little bigger (It just makes FP criteria), and I wish there were some sort of frame of reference. Viewer has no idea how tall those ledges are... tiZom_(2¢) 05:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up...Before I vote, are those jpeg artifacts considered too noticeable at the full size (on the ledges, etc.)? tiZom_(2¢) 05:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that noticeable.Sorry about the low resolution.The guy that works at the website I got this image off won't send me a higher res.I mean it's his job to do that stuff but he won't do it. SOADLuver 16:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain -- I think there is definite wow factor for me, but to see detail so small, it needs to have a higher resolution. tiZom_(2¢) 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also love this image. That's why I fought in order to be considered a Quality Image (with no success). You are right, we have no idea of scale. Now, I'll wait for the consensus and see... Alvesgaspar 09:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no "wow factor" for me and the technical quality is not very good. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Per above ("wow" factor and artifacts). --Tewy 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nowhere near high enough res (so detail) on subject matter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. A sense of scale would really add to the picture. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 07:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Aesthetics has prevailed. I also think that the lack of scale contributes to the irreality of the picture. - Alvesgaspar 08:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lots of blurriness and artifacts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]