Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Coppice Sand Dunes

Coppice Sand Dunes

 * Reason:Interesting, encyclopedic image of a beautiful phenomena of the sand and the wind
 * Proposed caption:Sand Dunes in Death Valley National Park. The image shows coppice dunes, which are formed around vegetation. These dunes are usually found in the deserts in semiarid regions. Like with all sand dunes the coppice dunes form, when there is lots of loose sand,a wind, which is strong enough to move the sand and some kind of obstruction, where sand particles settle out.  The size and shape of a coppice dune depends on the amount of sand available, the characteristics of the wind and on forms of vegetations they form around. As you could see from the image the dunes are very much symmetrical. The image also shows wind ripples. They form, when sand grains bouncing and rolling up the windward surface of a dune land on the windward side of each ripple and produces a low ridge. Here's the image, which shows the same dunes from above:[[Image:Sand_dunes_and_road_in_Death_Valley.jpg|64px]]
 * Articles this image appears in:Dune
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The emphasis is on the whole landscape, not the dunes themselves. At full scale, the picture is not sharp, and that artificial saturation is not fooling anyone. Lipton sale (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I always wonder, why sometimes an image gets no votes at all. Is it too bad to support, but not too bad to oppose? Is it so boring that there's no use to spend a time voting? I like, when the images I've nominated get votes. I like supports better, but I like opposes too.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself here, but for me I didn't vote on this one because I had already shot down an image or two and just didn't feel like disappointing someone unless the image started racking up positive votes. Call it a simplistic weakness.  For my part, the issues I have are focus, the color of the image has an unnatural tinge, and the dune's size don't have a reference point outside the mountains in the distance - which I think makes them seem smaller than they actually were.  The best, Ryo 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment,Ryo. I used to be very much disappointed, when my images were opposed. That time has long past. It is a good point about the size of the dunes (I'm talking only about the dunes around the vegetation). They were rather small maybe 50-70 centimeters high.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, oversaturated and not very sharp. We've got better illustrations of dunes anyway, such as this picture. --Aqwis (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote,Aqwis. I agree the picture by Luca Galuzzi is much better and much more ineresting than mine. I've nominated my image because it gives an introduction to a different type of dunes, which is not mentioned in the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak support original An attractive shot, albeit the notably strong saturation. The second, however, is far too dull and washed out. -- Chris.B  |  talk  15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - low technical quality for such an easy-to-obtain subject.--Svetovid (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, the colours just look too artificial, even in the edit. You did ask for votes ;). --jjron (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did and I love them all. Thank you for your votes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)