Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High Pressure Area over the Great Australian Bight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High Pressure Area over the Great Australian Bight[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 13:16:45 (UTC)

High Definition and True color image of a Unusual Anitcylone, the opposite of a Cyclone over the Great Australian Bight, Southern Australia, spotting a cloud hole surrounded by marine stratocumulus clouds.
High Pressure Areas in nature rarely make a 'hole' in the clouds, like the one pictured, are rare, and the image is of great quality, in true, natural color equivalent to a human eye looking down from space, showing a powerful Anticyclone, the opposite of a Low pressure Area! (Source and proof:
Articles in which this image appears
High-pressure area
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
NASA, MODIS Rapid Response System
  • Support as nominator --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 13:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A cool picture of a weather phenomena which is not just another storm or cyclone. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A little off centre but that'll do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks!--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The description reads - "Earth100 checked the isobaric chart of southern Australia, which showed that there was really, a strong High Pressure area right where the area of clear clouds was located.". What is this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, i saw this counterclockwise spinning hole in the ocean of clouds in satellite imagery, but i wasn't sure if it was a High Pressure area so i checked AU's meteorological center to check the Isobaric chart, and Vola, the chart at that time shows a High Pressure Area at the area which showed up a spot in satellite imagery.

Luckily, all what i said can be found here: So hink, there is no need to be that Oppose. --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 02:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is still in the description though. The description is not what a FP should be. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that this should visibly be above Australia? Please state what you mean in a clear and unambiguous manner. — Crisco 1492 (talk)

07:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that this was visible above Southern Australia, on June 5, 2012, as taken by the Aqua satellite, which took the image in true color.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 12:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My comment was directed at Hink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm saying that the comment is inappropriate and unsourced. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In the article proper? Earth100 seems to have offered a link for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In the description for the image. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Can a third party explain the above, please (assuming it is clearer to anyone else than it is to me)? Is the question whether there is original research here? Chick Bowen 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, there is no Original Research Here. As i said, everything is sourced in

For my statement Hink questioned, it was sourced from here:,IDX0102.201206050600.gif,IDX0102.201206051200.gif,IDX0102.201206051800.gif as EarthObservatory also stated. So, everything is, true and sourced here☉‿☉.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 12:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Did anyone click on the image? Check the end of the first paragraph, where it mentions Earth100 and "really, a strong". That is no language for an FP. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's sourced man, but if you don't like that description, feel free to remove it adminis!--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 22:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You're the one who wants it to be a featured picture. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggest suspension. I still have no idea what these two are going on about, but whatever it is it seems like it needs to be resolved before this can be considered for FP. Chick Bowen 03:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • If you click on the image in the top-right of the article, you'll see this phrase - "Earth100 checked the isobaric chart of southern Australia, which showed that there was really, a strong High Pressure area right where the area of clear clouds was located." - which I think is utterly unfit for a featured picture. And also, there's a typo in the image caption up top! --♫

Hurricanehink (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, i really don't understand what the heck are you complaining about, everything is sourced, and for my statement, if you think it is inappropriate, than just get some admin to remove it!--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 05:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an admin. You're the one nominating the picture. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If I can try to summarise the above, the image and description on the image page have been purloined from here (and FWIW Earth100 the "Source" stated on the image page seems to be wrong, perhaps that was your original source for the image (but not description) that was later overwritten? The images are reproducible, but not sure whether you're meant to just copy and paste the text?). Anyway, I think Hurricanehink's problem is that Earth100 has also added some further information to the original copied text, including a statement that he checked the image against isobaric charts from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to confirm the stated phenomenon. This would appear to be original research by Earth100, especially as best I can tell it includes some interpolation from the isobaric charts on Earth100's part which I can't find to be fully supported by any of the refs, but the other thing is these added statements seem to me largely unnecessary. So why not just remove the additional and possibly OR statements? Well now the image page has been protected on Commons to view source only, apparently due to edit warring. Although this warring doesn't show in the page history, nonetheless the upshot is we now can't change the image page text to fix the issues identified. Any suggestions? --jjron (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In order to remove what you guys think it's OR, or whatever, just get a commons admin to remove that sentence, thank you.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 13:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked anyone yet? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

er...i think i'm going to ask User:INeverCry--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That User, did it, how it is now?--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 05:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The description should be based off of the article. That description is still talking about lining up with the high-pressure area based on surface observations. Also, the entire last paragraph is just a cut and paste of the NASA page; while not copyrighted, it should be paraphrased or indicated as a direct quote. There is also nothing about counterclockwise spinning in the Earth Observatory article. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The above is still a problem for me, as well (the cut and paste). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, i'm one step ahead-the SOURCE: See? No OR! --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose without prejudice. This is turning into a farce. The image is potentially featurable, but you need to get the image page description sorted out properly, then renominate. I would normally say to Suspend, but given the image page has been locked down for 12 months that's too long for a suspension, and since this nom has turned into a silly bunfight, I reckon we finish it off and start fresh without bias when it's been sorted out properly. In the meantime please get some practice in correct use of sources and understanding Wiki policies. --jjron (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There are 29 deleted edits in the history of this image which are uploads of new versions and reverts to earlier versions by several users. This is what led to the year protection, after a shorter protection a little earlier. I've advised Earth100 that changes to the image should be proposed/discussed on its talkpage and questions directed to the protecting admin. INeverCry 07:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment FYI, Earth100 has been blocked from the English Wikipedia for 2 months, although not the commons. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This really needs to be suspended until it is figured out. Like an issue of copyright questions there's nothing gained by keeping the clock going on this and nothing lost by suspending it until it can be cleared up. Failing that this should be ended now, the argument taken to a talk page somewhere, and the image renominated once this is settled. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)