Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Death Valley aerial view
Satellite View of Death Valley[edit]
- Reason
- I first nominated this image back in August 2008, thinking it of high quality. It hasn't changed, and the encyclopedic value is still there - in fact, the only reason the image failed last time appeared to be a confusion when the image was uploaded. It's wonderfully encyclopedic and of high res.
- Articles this image appears in
- Death Valley
- Creator
- Landsat 7 image; this image was made by NASA
- Support as nominator --ceranthor 16:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you explain a little bit more what this image would be used for--what it tells us that a visible-light photograph wouldn't? It appears to illustrate the paragraph on convection in the article, but there's no explanation there of how those processes are shown by the picture. Also, what's the bright red on the right side about half way down? Is that just a more intense version of what you're describing in the legend as "rust"? Chick Bowen 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's of very high quality, for one, and tells us more about various aspect(s) of Death Valley. I think it's obvious why the aspect(s) it shows (ie. climate, geology) are important to the article on the subject and overall are highly encyclopedic - as I mentioned in the nom. Is the bright red the pinkish colored thing? ceranthor 21:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- See to the right--what is the red there? Are those parts hotter, lower, higher, flatter? Also, I hope I'm not being totally dense on the image's function, but it's not that obvious to me. Basically, this image would be used because it tracks vegetation in the valley more clearly than a visible-light image, which in turn shows the relationship between topography and climate--do I have that right? Again, it may seem obvious to someone familiar with this kind of image, but I think currently the relationship between the image and the corresponding prose in the article isn't very clear. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's basically it. I can understand your problems with the article; it's not great. I intend to improve it at some later time, actually. ceranthor 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not sure what the red is. Upon initial looks, I thought it might be open land at a dramatically lower (or higher?) elevation. Thermography might yield some answers. ceranthor 22:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's basically it. I can understand your problems with the article; it's not great. I intend to improve it at some later time, actually. ceranthor 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- See to the right--what is the red there? Are those parts hotter, lower, higher, flatter? Also, I hope I'm not being totally dense on the image's function, but it's not that obvious to me. Basically, this image would be used because it tracks vegetation in the valley more clearly than a visible-light image, which in turn shows the relationship between topography and climate--do I have that right? Again, it may seem obvious to someone familiar with this kind of image, but I think currently the relationship between the image and the corresponding prose in the article isn't very clear. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: informative, and far more visually attractive than its less colorful visible-light counterpart. Sarah182 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very informative, high quality. Beautiful. Jujutacular T · C 20:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)