Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yamdok Yumtso

Yamdok Yumtso

Yamdok Yumtso in September.

Another breathtaking view of nature...

Nominate and Support Political Mind 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wish the resolution was a little higher and the photo a little more panoramic, but otherwise it's nice. --Mad Max 22:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mad Max. Not sure on my vote. The clouds are a bit over sharpened too. Stevage 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Beautiful! fpwannabe

Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A little bit small, but very striking. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Small, but it does meet the requirement. Real problem I see is I am not sure how well it shows the lake... very beautiful picture none the less. say1988 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a beautiful picture, but tells us more about the sky on that particular day than about the lake itself. In other words, I don't think it's very encyclopedic. -- moondigger 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Where ever this was taken is now currently where I wish I was. This is a beautiful shot. TomStar81 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough detail; it feels so generic. If it was higher resolution and more encompassing, I'd be able to pick out the features specific to the area. I want to be able to see the path on the far side, etc. Night Gyr 05:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful picture. Pleasing to the eye. Resolution could be a bit higher, though. Mikeo 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo. Agree with Mad Max's sentiments though. --Fir0002 09:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Wonderful photo, would change to a strong support if a higher res version is made available - only the high res would fully justify the unencyclopedic nature. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 10:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per Mad Max. --Pharaoh Hound 10:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks nice and its resolution is high enough for me. WikiSlasher 12:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Striking Location and Image. But the clouds are a little too distracting.Advanced 17:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good nature image. G.H e 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice, however I think it would look better as a panorama.--Tnarg 12345 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. This image is very beautiful (so much so I actually set it as my desktop), yes, however I find it to be unencyclopedic per moondigger. Sorry Guy 03:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It definitely adds a lot to the article it's in...but I still don't feel like I can see much of the lake. I don't know from this photo whether we're seeing half, a quarter, a tenth, a fiftieth of the lake - is this one of the world's biggest lakes, or a mere pond? A camera angle slightly more to the left (to take in the far side and left bank if possible), and slightly retreated (to take in the near edge - though I'm pretty sure we're on the bank as you can see a tiny bit of weed close by) would help in that regard. Lovely photo, just not *quite* encyclopaedic enough for me. Stevage 08:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A little too generic for me. The large portion of the frame dedicated to the reflection doesn't help the composition for me as it is basically an unsharp inverse duplication of the hills and doesn't add a lot to the scene. It does illustrate the landscape but not to the extent I would expect from a FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suppoort. It's a beautiful picture and is high resolution. However it would be better if it didn't have the clouds --Geoffrey Gibson 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Nauticashades 18:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with all the above -- BWF89 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]