Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg

Crepuscular Ray Sunset from Telstra Tower
Really quite lucky to have such a great sunset on our visit to the Telstra Tower. It was phenomenally windy though, so the exposure bracket (which is the second photo) was really hard to get.


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I like the second pic, first one is too dark, although the rays themselves come out better. Which one is nominated? --Dschwen 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well see I couldn't decide, nor my team of experts :). I thought I'd see the reaction of others. My preference is for the second one --Fir0002 23:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The second one is incredible. I'd support it.PiccoloNamek 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise. --vaeiou 02:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The foreground is a bit too dark, but the second one is quite a candidate. - Mgm|(talk) 14:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the second. Quite beautiful. Enochlau 02:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the second one. Awesome work.PiccoloNamek 08:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second – although I don't have any real problems with the first, the second is indeed spectacular. Raven4x4x 10:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second. Brilliant work. Alr 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support first. Masterful. Neutralitytalk 03:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second. Wow. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support either. Nice shots. TomStar81 23:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second. Fine candidate for a featured pic. Dragonlord kfb 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second. Beautiful. Zafiroblue05 07:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second. __earth 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Support second I cannot believe it, I was just about to support the second pic, but it does not appear in a single article. The first one is one in many pics at the bottom of the Crepuscular Rays article, which makes me think it does not add significantly to that article. I really don't want to be the party pooper here, but I thought FPCs should fulfill other criteria besides being pretty. --Dschwen 16:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: It'll take Fir just a minute or two to exchange the pic in all articles, by uploading version 2 over the original, so both can be considered FPC candidates! I prefer and support the second one. Nice to have some detail in the landscape. --Janke | Talk 17:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is what I'll do --Fir0002 08:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support either Truly awesome. SoLando (Talk) 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak support first, Strong support second. Both are great pictures, but the second is amazing. - Cuivienen 01:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second, magnificent. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose second, weak support first. Second is just yet another of tons of crepusucluar rays pictures. Its a pitty the tons of them are not yet on commons, but thats no reason for featured pic status. The first is much more interesting because of the spots of light on the ground. --Wikimol 11:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Executive veto style oppose - they add nothing to the articles (the second one isn't in an article) and the first has no caption. It can't be promoted. Broken S 14:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but the first one clearly has the caption "crepuscular ray sunset". And adding it to the article by removing on of the less spectacular non FP quality photos would take approx 10 seconds. --Fir0002 10:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to respond, yes I know the voting is over, I feel I ought to defend myself. By "no caption" I mean no useful caption. It adds no information. It's not a full sentence and introduces no more information about the subject. Caption isn't as clear as it should be. Also, since it is so small it can't really draw in the reader. I didn't want to slap the other picture in to the article without a caption. Pictures without captions belong at commons (there is a link to commons at the bottom). Pictures on wiki should provide extra information not just be pritty. Note: It is already an FP at commons, so voting submit to commons isn't possible. People aren't paying enough attention to the captions here at FPC. Broken S 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

. I added the image to the crepuscular rays article in the lead section (with a caption), replacing an image which I moved to the gallery. Raven4x4x 04:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)