Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fields of Devon

Fields of Devon

 * Reason:very good quality, Great EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Devon
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
 * Creator:Herbythyme


 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support -- very nice and high EV. Well done panorama -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a nicely done panorama, but I'm not convinced of the EV. As the article says, snow in Devon is pretty rare, so it doesn't seem right to feature a landscape with weather conditions that only exist for a couple of days every couple of years. If there was an article on the climate of Devon, I think it would have more EV there. As it is, it is the only image in the climate section and isn't very representative of the climate. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is not only about the snow. It is mostly about fields. There are also some sheeps. I added some more to the caption, and of course the image has a very good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's in the climate section of the article, not geography or agriculture. I just think that the same view taken under more representative conditions (spring or summer) would have more EV for agriculture, and there's no particular reason why it couldn't be re-shot as the author is local to Devon. With snow, the scope for EV is lower. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But if snow is uncommon, and this one shows snow, and is in the climate section it is there precisely to show that rare infrequent phenomenon. If people don't believe there is also snow at Devon you can show that image. In the case of climatic conditions it is, I think, the uncommon what deserve a picture. In most of the globe, the weather of an ordinary day would be hard to show in a picture (unless it is a temperature, humidity or wind speed chart). Since there will be atmospherically nothing going on, the picture will be probably about whatever it is shown in the landscape. This picture is about the uncommon snow in Devon and the text says that is something worth saying. Abisharan (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to say that you are saying that because of what you yourself see as a "normal" climate. I would not want to see a picture of rainclouds in a section on the climate of a certain desert. It would probably have a place (monsoon season, maybe) but is of less interest than the regular climate. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you would like to see it in a section that is saying that in the desert it rarely rains but it does and then have a picture showing you that in fact that is the case. Is all that is happening here. The section says that "snow is relatively uncommon", says that it has happened and then you have the picture as a proof. Not exactly the "snowfall of February 2009" but one a year later. Abisharan (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, look at it like this. If a 12 year old is doing a school project on Devon and they want to talk about the climate/weather, this is hardly going to be the first image that they want. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If he wants a picture of Devon of course he would want a different one. It is a confusion about what this image is. Just go to the article and look how the image is being used. This is snow in Devon, it is in a section in which they talk explicitly about this phenomenon. That's is why I think the claim of lack of EV is unfounded. If the 12 year old wants to talk about the snow in Devon no other picture will serve and if snowing is indeed scarce in Devon he will find difficult to get an image, even more an image as good looking as this one. Abisharan (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The main issue is that it doesn't really complement the article very well. It illustrates a marginal weather condition that is only mentioned in passing and I think really, as good as the image is, it should be removed and replaced with a more representative image of the climate. At the very least, it should remain in addition to a representative image that provides the bulk of the EV to the climate section. If a 12 year old really wants a photo of the snow in Devon, he should check Commons, not the Wiki article on Devon. But that's beside the point really. :-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's is what I disagree with. That section, has a table, showing how the ordinary weather in Devon is, and then the image of the punctual phenomenon mentioned in the text. If the usual weather in Devon is an ordinary not-too-cold, not-too-warm, not-too-windy etc day I wonder how is that going to be shown in a picture. (Note: it is not that I doubt a picture can not show weather, but is something that a chart or a table would do much better) I believe it is one of those cases in which an image is not really the best option, and in this case a table is being used for that purpose. What begs for an image, is the punctual occurrence of the snow. If someone doesn't believe you that there has been snow in Devon, there you go, you show that picture. And it is the editors of that article the ones that decided that pointing out that there is snow sometimes in Devon is worth mentioning. Abisharan (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not there just to prove something that someone doesn't happen to believe! It doesn't beg for a photo of every random phenomenon that occasionally occurs in Devon. The article should include only the most relevant information. I'm not really sure what you mean by punctual occurence of snow either. There's nothing punctual about it at all, unless by that you mean it happens in roughly the same time of year. The article says that's its infrequent and uncommon. Besides, the Climate of England article also happens to basically mirror the Devon article regarding snow: "Snowfall can occur in winter and early spring, although it is not that common away from high ground." so there doesn't seem to be anything about the snow that is either notable or representative. We're starting to go around in circles now anyway, so I'll leave it at that. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Does hugin/did you (Herby) use nearest-neighbour sampling? Some of the edges look like they want anti-aliasing - too jagged. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's beautiful, and regulars here will know I normally love shots like this, but I'm just not convinced about the EV. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, it is a magnificent picture, given climate change, it is likely to become more prevalent as well. GerardM (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. A high quality illustration of Devon. It may not snow all that much there, but it snows enough that this picture is not misleading (as an aside, I'd say that we need more pictures of the UK under cloud and rain if we're going to apply this standard). Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think it's a bit misleading since it's the ONLY photo of the countryside in the entire article. And yes, I've considered the fact that the UK is probably stereotypically best represented by overcast skies, but aside from aesthetic disadvantages they tend to also not show the subject as successfully either (duller colours, possibly obscured by clouds/mist, sky blown as a result of a disparity in the brightness of the sky and the subject, etc). &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  06:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dliff and J Milburn. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Panoramas are themselves interesting as a technology. However, this image has a cloudy, bleak look to it that doesn’t invoke an *inviting* feeling sufficient to make one want to click on it and further explore the image closely. Sorry. I hate voting “oppose”. Greg L (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)