Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tornado

Tornado[edit]

Reason: eye catchinghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beobachtungsliste
Articles this image appears in: Tornado, 1971, Weather control
Creator: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Nominator: TomStar81 (Talk)

Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 22:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support a bit small and grainy, but this appears to be the norm for tornado images across the web. The composition is very nice though. Debivort 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose too small, and definitely too grainy since it is that small. And not that pleasing to the eye as many other tornado pictures. gren グレン 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean too small? It specifically states on the criteria page that "Images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported...", and this one is 1024 × 679. That more than enough to be eligable. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is more than enough to be eligible but I don't believe it represents the best of what is on Wikipedia. This isn't a ridiculous nomination like some of the really low resolution ones, but I think there are better alternatives out there. gren グレン 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Tons of JPEG artifacts. No excuse for that. --Fastfission 15:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality 8thstar 18:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beats the pants off any other tornado image here and challenges some of the best I've ever seen. It's not too small by any criteria, detail in the coulds (the whole point) is good and some soft graininess really isn't such a big deal for this kind of (film-shot) subject. mikaul 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone want to ask Daphne if there is a higher quality version of the picture? ~ trialsanderrors 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking and interesting (at least to me, as I live in a nearly tornado free country (England)) - Adrian Pingstone 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the use of this image in 1971 is questionable and possibly misleading. This pic was taken 1999, a photo of the 1971 events would be preferable. --Dschwen 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]