Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Devils Tower

Devils Tower

Photos illustrates Devils Tower National Monument well, is well composed and has nice background. Created & uploaded by User:Colin.faulkingham cropped by User:Plumbago.

Nominate and support. - Ravedave 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Striking, but the quality (especially of the sky) is fairly poor. And Devils Tower National Monument has no shortage of photos. bcasterline t 22:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sky is a little bit blotchy, but that's about it. What other issues besides the sky do you see? Most other photos are tiny in size... Nothing like featured quality. =- Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is my main objection: it loses the advantages it might gain from having a high resolution and doesn't satisfy the criteria. And since the article is replete with photos -- some of which, I think, better depict the igneous intrusion by providing a more informative perspective -- this photo isn't of especially high encyclopedic value, either. (Not that it's a bad or useless photo. Just not FP.) bcasterline t 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I want to support this because the subject is unusual and striking but the quality is just too poor. maybe resize to 1500?--Deglr6328 02:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Little bit of a problem with the sky, but nothing too distracting. Perhaps pine forest image is better? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The blotchiness of the sky is a drawback, but then my eye catches the rock and I'm drawn in. Weak support. --Golbez 06:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This means something. This is important. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some reviewers have pointed out a problem with sky, but this is not apparent on my computer. I think this a well composed image. --Philopedia 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]