Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg

Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza

 * Reason:The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area covers about a fifth of the state. This panorama has a field of view that is roughly 180 degrees and covers a sizeable chunk of that area. It is also an important illustration for Lake Pedder. I've marked some of the mountain ranges and peaks at commons:File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg (assuming that it will work here eventually).
 * Articles this image appears in:Southwest National Park, Tasmanian Wilderness, Lake Pedder, South West Wilderness, Arthur Range
 * Creator:Noodle snacks

--jjron (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support due to nice images contributed by our Australian photographers, Australia has been on my must-go-there-list. :-) Caspian blue 07:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: good EV, outstanding quality. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, stunning, gives a great sense of the park. gren グレン 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Peripitus (Talk) 03:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - WanderNauta (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - wonderful image... as per Caspian, except that for me it's a must-go-BACK-there...  Gazhiley (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Lovely. Durova  382 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Great picture, however it also demonstrates how misleading an image can be, by aesthetizing an environmental disaster. I think the caption needs to provide more background info, both here and in the article. Elekhh (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aesthetizing anything - the view from the top is absolutely spectacular. Environmental disaster is a POV, so I wouldn't use those words in a caption (even though I tend to agree with you). The lake pedder article has paragraphs of information about the damming (and has some mild pov issues imo). I think it is probably appropriate to specify the 'new' lake pedder in that article, and leave the other ones as is. What do you think? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont understand this - what evironmental disaster is the above user refering to? If it's the evolution of the landscape well surely a picture of any valley or mountain is the same? And even if it is what the user is refering to this why should that stop a picture of it being an FP? It's not like Noodle snacks is using it for any political or propagander reasons... Gazhiley (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with NS. While Elekhh is correct, it's not up to the image to document the environmental conflict (I guess the caption could mention that the current lake is the result of damming or something). The article should (and does) discuss the conflict, if a bit briefly (and POVy). Re Gazhiley, in short the Tas government and hydroelectricity commission were big into damming these remote wildernesses during last century, particularly after WWII; the Lake Pedder damming in the 70s led to significant protests and the birth of world's first green political party, and was a precursor to the Franklin Dam controversy, which about 10 years later became what is probably still the most significant environmental campaign in Australian history. --jjron (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... Thanks for the info! I reiterate then that this should not affect the FP now then as we are assessing a picture for its quality, not whether the subject should exist or not... Gazhiley (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No it should not affect the FP, which I support as well, just reading the reactions, I had the impression that not everybody is aware that this is a landscape significantly altered by human intervention, which resulted in massive change to the local ecosystem, including species extinction. I would find useful to have a hint in the caption, as suggested by Jjiron, explaining that the lake in its present size and form is the result of the 1972 dam. Elekhh (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Amazing Picture Tim1337 (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – Wladyslaw (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, ooh! --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pile on support. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, beautiful image. Great illustration of the area as well. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)