Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tessellated Pavement Sunrise Landscape.jpg

Tessellated Pavement Sunrise

 * Reason:Its pretty, but good enc as well, the wide perspective gives both close-up detail and a wider view of the scene and helps to display the structure of the concave pans. I tried to stitch a panorama, but parallax caused problems with the stitching and the geometry of the rock was distorted with anything but a rectilinear projection.
 * Articles this image appears in:Tessellated Pavement, Eaglehawk Neck, Tasmania (replaced an existing image of the same thing)
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support A really good image of an interesting rock formation.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Fascinating subject and the image portrays it perfectly. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated to strong support per Durova. It really is outstanding. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support excellent illustration of an encyclopedic subject. Also high esthetic merit.  You outdid yourself, Noodle snacks. :)  Durova Charge! 06:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose While pretty I think the angle in this shot works much better for EV as it's hard to get an idea of the scale of the pavement from this image --Fir0002 09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The closer foreground allows both detail and a wider view to be simultaneously seen, where as the view from the lookout only really gives an overview of what is going on. The alternate also misrepresents the scale, there are too many trees around the lookout to get a high up shot of the lot (the pavement extends along the shore a fair way). Furthermore, the tessellated pavement article is really about the geological feature ("Tessellated pavement is a rare erosional feature formed in...", "The pan formation is a series of concave depressions in the rock, and typically..."), only a passing mention is given to this place specifically. You could also argue that the EV is better in this image for Eaglehawk Neck as the sides of Pirate's bay are shown if you really wanted to. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty picture and high EV. --Jf268 (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I'm going to have to disagree with Fir0002 (hi!) on this one. I had a look at Tessellated pavement and tried to imagine each of these images being the lead photo. I think this one works better. He may be right that "it's hard to get an idea of the scale", but for this geological feature, I think detail is more important than scale. It's not like Uluru or something. Btw, how come I've never heard of this, I must have driven past it :( Stevage 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak, Weak Oppose. Though of good quality, I have to agree a bit with Fir. I don't get a size indication with this image like I do with File:Tessellated Pavement post Sunrise.jpg, and I think that image also shows how large the pavement actually is.  Spencer T♦C 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose given the light conditions, I think information regarding colour and - to a lesser extent - texture is missing which could add value to the image. I also agree that a different image could better show the scale of the feature. Guest9999 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - been there a few times and taken quite a few photos. While the angle Fir0002 points out gives a better plan view it does not, from the point of view of a person who's stood on it, give a better feeling of scale. What Noodle's picture does is make me go WOW, want to fly back, see it again and know more about how the thing came about. It gives me enough of a scale feeling and does it for me - Peripitus (Talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've changed my vote to strong support and I will support the other image too, if it is used in an article. This place is so interesting and so unusual that I see no problem, if two images are promoted. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose No sense of scale. Distracting lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Ditto what Noodle snacks said in response to Fir0002. This image features detail of the actual nature of the rock formation; not this rock formation, in Tasmania, but this type of rock formation.  I think that's invaluable; it's fascinating to look at.  Plus, it has that crucial click-able pretty factor.   Mae din \talk 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Have been there and photographed this place myself. Sure there are interesting features that this picture doesn't capture (like the 'loaf' formations which if anything I find more interesting), but not every picture has to capture every feature of a place, and to me this shows enough and serves to draw the reader in. --jjron (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)