Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg

Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg, not featured

 

•  Nominate

and  Support. I know, the resolution is quite meagre and the picture has other flaws too, but the cloud is breathtaking. Calderwood 14:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• in the German Wikipedia Calderwood 14:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low resolution, JPEG artifacts visible especially in clouds and right building with tower. -- Lerdsuwa 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Very impressive! - MPF 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Support ACK Calderwood and MPF. Maybe the uploader could contribute a bigger version? --SehLax 21:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Resolution too low. — Erin (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Urban 06:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose breaks my heart of steel to oppose since the weatherfront is awesome but the resolution is way too low. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support the phenomenon is very well depicted and understandable here, and the city adds a sense of scale (and dramatic effect, which does add something when it manages to stay discreet like here). Rama 10:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose resolution / artifacts. Darkone 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support fascinating --Buchling 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Edit by User:LoopZilla inserted here. Edits are always discussed in the same template. Calderwood 07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see why it should be good too interpolate pictures. It's very blurry now even in the image page --SehLax 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support It is fearfully beautiful! --Kumaapr9 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose resolution is way to low to be featured and quality of second picture is too bad -- Gorgo 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose yikes! artifacts... resolution... blurry... -Quasipalm 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We need not discuss the fact that the technical quality of this picture is very low. But in all my life I have never seen such a cloud, which makes me believe that clouds of this kind are pretty rare. So the mere existence of this photo is a point in its favour - comparable to historical photos, which are sometimes technically quite bad but nevertheless get featured with good reason. Calderwood 22:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

that might be true, but I think a featured picture has to be outstanding on a technical and on a content level, just one makes it quite nice but not "featured" in my opinion -- Gorgo 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion differs from yours - and not only mine as the support votes on this picture show. Calderwood 07:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

•  Support the first one Kessa Ligerro 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment Which one are we voting on? LoopZilla 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Lycaon 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Briseis 11:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support. villy ♦✎ 07:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --AFBorchert 06:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ACK, Calderwood
•  Support ack Calderwood Mayamaxima 15:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing - Bertilvidet 22:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Content is far more important than size. -- Solipsist 08:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support A street in the sky. Just amazing Metoc 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Roger McLassus 14:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose too low resolution -- pretty cool, though gren 19:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Results: 15  Support and 9  Oppose → not featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)