Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Burnt Tree

Burnt Tree


I think this would be a good picture because it is not too crouded and it looks pleasing to the eye. This appears in the Yellowstone National Park article. I took it myself.


 * Nominate and support. - Jake   (talk)  23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose From an aestetic point of view it strikes me as nice, but it has limited encyclopedic value and there is little detail on the tree itself(I know it is supposed to be black). HighInBC 00:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. From the position of the tree (near a hot spring) I would suppose that this one was rather killed by a change in activity of that spring, causing it to be exposed to volcanic gases at a higher degree than before. In these cases the tree trunks usually turn black or grey. You can see this in Yellowstone National Park (besides the many burnt trees resulting from the big fire). Besides that I do not like the composition. The tree in the center of the picture is making it look very dull. I also would like to see more details of the tree. Mikeo 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above; more detail in the actual tree would be better. -- Tewy  02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a cut version. -- Jake  (talk)  11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't get the point of this pic. A burnt tree is not, in my opinion, a worthwhile addition to the Yellowstone Park article. Much better to keep that space free for an informative pic of the park. - Adrian Pingstone 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with most of the previous comments. It isn't a significant enough addition to the article to be considered FP. As Adrian Pingstone mentions, I'm not sure if its even significant enough to be in the article at all. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wow, big deal.Arad 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unencyclopedic (all it tells you about Yellowstone is that it has trees and forest fires), boring, not pleasing to the eye. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not striking. Jam01 06:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 howch e  ng   {chat} 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)