Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular ray sunset at Pearl Harbor

Crepuscular ray sunset in Pearl Harbor


I took this picture at Pearl Harbor on Ford Island in Hawaii, USA, on 8/9/2005. People told me the image was spectacular, so hey, I decided to nominate it for the featured picture candidate. I hope it gets in!! I would be so happy. :D This picture is seen in the article Crepuscular rays.


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Nominate and Support -- [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|17px]] Mac Davis ] ⌇☢ &#xE0D;&#x19B;. 12:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that there are already TWO featured pictures in that article of the exact same thing? And I hate to tell you, but both are probably more spectacular than this one. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sorry, but I agree with Diliff. The gallery in that article should be moved to commons anyway, no matter how pretty those pics look. --Dschwen 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you moved the gallery, so, technically, this image isn't even eligible for FPC anymore... However, I do like the rays diverging in all directions. --Janke | Talk 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but lets still wait till the official end of the voting period. And this particular picture can be reinserted in any case, I just thought two pics (both featured) were enough for this amount of text. --Dschwen 09:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel strongly that this image deserves a place in the article, even if it has to be at the expense of one of the existing FPs. I went along to move the gallery myself a few days ago, but didn't because I concur that the article can't really support more than 2 pics, and given my support for this one I had too much of a conflict of interest to trust myself to remove one of the existing FPs (effectively debarring it from featured status). But I still disagree with the removal of this picture from the article, when the two images left behind (though super quality) are less informative ~ Veledan • Talk 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't there be more than two pics in the article? After all, the subject is a visual phenomenon! I'd say, put the gallery back... --Janke | Talk 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - all has been said. --Deglr6328 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I agree this isn't quite as striking as the other two, but I give this one the ticket for encyclopedic value because (unusually) you can see crepuscular rays in both directions at once. I remember reading the article last time we had a crepuscular ray pic nominated, and after seeing the previous two FPs wondering how crepuscular rays could appear to diverge from a point only about a mile above the earth's surface when they ought to look parallel coming from the Sun: it was this picture that made me understand the perspective illusion. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.png|15px]] NeutralIt's a lovely image but I have to agree with the above comments. It's very similar. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 10:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too boring to be a featured picture. BWF89 16:47, March 27 2006
 * Oppose as per Diliff. --P199 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)