Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clear eye of cyclone Bansi

Clear eye of cyclone Bansi
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2018  at 17:30:33 (UTC)
 * Reason:Night photo of a cyclone shows the calm and clarity of inside the eye region. Used in the article to depict the eye in the "Eye and center" section. Earth's surface (ocean) is visible and clear through the eye – enhanced because the photo is illuminated by lightening near the eye. It wouldn't be as vivid or dramatic in a daytime photo, examples,.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Tropical cyclone
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
 * Creator:NASA Expedition 42 crew (denoised by Bammesk)


 * Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Needless to say it's awfully dark, and as a composition it's not readily apparent what the subject is. Sca (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously I don't see your points as substantial. 1- It's a night photo, it is not unusual for night photos to be dark. It isn't awfully dark if your screen brightness is set properly, for review purposes, at medium. 2- For science related images, "being readily apparent" is an irrelevant thing to look for. See our FPs here to understand what I mean. Bammesk (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Being readily apparent, i.e. generally identifiable, is a necessity for a TFP. The Main Page is not a science portal. Sca (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The FP nom process is for choosing images that best enhance articles, not images that enhance the main page. Read the FP criteria. By the way "apparent" and "identifiable" are two different things, anyway, see our FPs here to understand what I mean. Bammesk (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's okay, though not ideal, for the article. On the Main Page it's basically a dark rectangle of little general interest. (I've long disagreed with the criteria on that point, for the obvious reason that the Main Page is pitched to a general audience.) – Sca (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the criteria, propose amending it here, not in individual noms. My opinion: encyclopedias exist to satisfy specific inquiries, not general interest. The main page shows the potential of what's inside, be it of general interest or not. Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No thanks – I've been down that road. Sca (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that road didn't go anywhere. And now you participate in noms so you can have some editorial influence on the main page, is that it? Bammesk (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sca, about this diff, replies to this nom belong in this nom. Bammesk (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - right idea, but needs higher resolution and a crop. Currently, File:Hurricane Michael (30294529587).jpg is a better image for illustrating the eye because of its resolution. 100x100 250x250 isn't really sufficient for illustrating calmness. If you can get a shot that has calm water in it, that would have even higher EV. MER-C 11:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I get your point if it was just about the calmness and clam waters, etc. Here is one of the best day photos we have showing earth. It is impressive but I think the nom image has more impact, just my opinion. For instance it shows the eye in the overall scale of things. Bammesk (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support a wider view too, as long as the resolution is there to see the details (an inset might help). (Also adjusted the dimensions - the eye is 250x250 but the point still stands.) MER-C 10:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wide view and higher resolution means two or more compositions (with or without inset). It would be possible in a day photo, but almost impossible or really hard at night, because of lightening. Just opining on the possibilities. Bammesk (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 18:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)