Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Vlei 4.jpg

Dead Vlei, Namibia-Acacia trees

 * Reason:Besides being technically OK it gives the viewer a good impression how Dead Vlei looks like. You see the ground with its pattern, several trees and the dunes.
 * Articles this image appears in:Dead Vlei - Namib-Naukluft National Park
 * Creator:Ikiwaner (talk)


 * Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind providing a caption for the image? Thanks,  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And translating the image page into English (which I was going to use to make a caption) - kind of necessary for en:wiki. --jjron (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I love it, but I actually prefer this one.-- Silversmith Hewwo 08:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Reminded of Georgia O'Keeffe (yeah, Africa and America are quite different places, but this picturesque image reminds me of her paintings).--Caspian blue 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. High value in Dead Vlei, and decent encyclopedic value in Namib-Naukluft National Park. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - did its job, made me want to check out the article. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. per nom. Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Question and comment. Does anyone really consider Wikipedia to be a viable first source? Do you have an outside source for the age of the trees? 158.158.240.230 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, this is not the place to bring up the reliability of Wikipedia. Sorry. As for the trees, I am sure that if it really bothered you, you could go there, cut one down, and count the rings... Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  07:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, Nezz. Its a legitimate concern brought up and your snide reply is not helpful. --Muhammad (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, counting the rings won't help as the trees have been purported to be dead for 900 years, not dead when 900. --Muhammad (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Muhammad is absolutely right - you've been counseled to be civil before Nezzadar. A search of Google scholar reveals that 900-700bp is the accepted date range. We can't be sure the figure is right, but we can't be sure that it's wrong either. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that caption shouldn't use self-quotation. Support age of trees with independent source in the article, or remove age from caption, i.e. replace with "Dead acacia trees in Dead Vlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia." or similar. Elekhh (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)