Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau.jpg

Crepuscular rays at sunset near Waterberg Plateau in Namibia
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 03:14:41 (UTC)
 * Reason:an interesting view of a natural phenomenon
 * Articles in which this image appears:Crepuscular rays
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics
 * Creator:Alchemist-hp


 * Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While a beautiful shot, we already have two FPs and one former FP of this phenomenon. O.J. (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Inspiring. Penyulap   talk 10:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lugged into a gallery on an over-illustrated article. As per O.J., this category is somewhat overrepresented. Improve the placement in the article (with consensus) and nominate for D&R with one of the earlier FPs and then we'll talk. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @J Milburn: it isn't my job to nominate images for delisting. "I" take only "some" new images. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support While both are stunning, ALT is a superior visual statement. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2 much foreground. Image doesn't work as thumbnail. Richard Bartz (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Alt-1 Good picture, Good EV, and meets all FP criteria. Dusty777 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Does every image in that gallery meet the EV requirement? Do we really need a third FP of this subject? J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Alt-1, beautiful. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1 per above. Clegs (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty, but per J Milburn. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Info the two current FPs: FP 1 und FP 2. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Great image, meets FP criteria. --  TropicalAnalystwx13      (talk)   01:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose per lack of EV. It's a beautiful image though, and I would support a Commons nomination. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how it can lack EV if there are two existing FP of the same topic and this image is a superior to both of those. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not the same images. There is a difference between crepuscular rays that are shadows of clouds and that are shadows of trees.--GXK147 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, I actually like this image very much, it's just that it doesn't quite meet the enwiki FP criteria. Changing to neutral. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1. Optionally replace both previous FPs, as the new one illustrates both crepuscular and anticrepuscular rays (slightly sceptical of the terminology, but that's what the article says...) Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Anticrepuscular rays are similar to crepuscular rays, but seen opposite the sun in the sky." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticrepuscular_rays There are no anticrepuscular rays at the nominated image.Anticrepuscular and crepuscular rays could be seen at the same image only, if this image is 360 degrees panorama. --GXK147 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I created delist/replace nomination for FP1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Crepuscular_rays_in_ggp_2.jpg I believe that the nominated image could be replaced with FP2. I believe the nominated image should be smaller because it will be easier to see the rays, if it is. Besides some quality problems would not be so noticeable. --GXK147 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

--Julia\talk 22:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)