Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sierra Escarpment

Sierra Escarpment

Reason

aesthetically pleasing, amazing and encyclopedic image.

Articles this image appears in

* Sierra Nevada (US),Inyo County, CaliforniaEscarpment,Owens Valley

Creator

G. Thomas

Nominator

JorcogaYell!

The Sierra Escarpment in Owens Valley, California, from the Inyo Mountains. Looking into the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range.

• Support — JorcogaYell! 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. Gorgeous, but the clouds are distracting and it's a little blurry --froth^{T C} 08:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Where is that picture blurry? It is as tack sharp as you can expect it to be after being downsized to only 600px height. --Dschwen 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What I mean is that a person standing there could see much more detail, where's the detail? It's only 600px high, and it shouldn't be hard to get a great shot in that clear mountain air. Sorry, bad choice of word --froth^{T C} 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Aha! That we certainly can agree on. Although the min. size is 1000px in one direction (yadayadayada). This picture is too small for my taste. Not nearly enough detail. The mountains are a measly 200px high. With panoramic images much higher resolutions can be achieved. --Dschwen 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Stunning scenery but farily low detail/resolution. --Dschwen 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I kind of agree with Froth. But you might want to make the one you have here as a thumbnail a little bigger.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose The clouds I actually like; it gives a sense of how tall the range is. But I agree with Froth the image should have more resolution vertically. --Bridgecross 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Size. It's just 1.4 mega pixels, very very low for a panorama. Maybe we should change the criteria from side dimension to number of megapixels to be more precise? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea, but it's not that strict of a requirement anyway --froth^{T C} 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Made me go wow! ... and it's big enough for me. Mactographer 10:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Vertical resolution, brightness/contrast/saturation. —Dgies^t c 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Nobody is bothered by the uneven polarization of the sky? Great, then maybe it is time for a renomination... --Dschwen 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well the uneven polarisation of the sky in this image isn't quite as bad as some others... But the colour cast looks quite purple to me and the scene just isn't as detailed as it should be. Good for the article, but not good enough for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)