Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:The Spit Bruny Island.jpg

The Neck

 * Reason:I was quite surprised to find that there was not a single picture in the isthmus article. Whilst not particularly notable, the isthmus is of a size suitable for photographic illustration. It is also an important geographical feature of Bruny Island.
 * Articles this image appears in:Isthmus, Bruny Island
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator, oppose edit (colours are wrong) --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 Gorgeous ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surprised I didn't develop it as sRGB in the first place, must have had the raw processor set wrong for some reason (my camera is set to sRGB). I'm not so sure about the yellow cast correction though, the sun was just over the horizon. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1Wow. The fix was very helpful -- mcshadypl T C  04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 Lovely scenery and good EV + technicals --Fir0002 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original I'll trust the photographer on the colour rendition --Fir0002 11:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 - Draws you into the scene wonderfully - Peripitus (Talk) 10:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support both --Avala (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question If the bodies of water on each side were ponds, would this still be an isthmus? Makeemlighter (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but I would say probably not. The other side of the land bridge would not be considered a separate land mass, and indeed, you could just walk around the pond to get to the other side.  However it seems like largely a matter of degree and I'm not sure where you would draw the line.  Fletcher (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny living on the surface of a sphere, innit? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I have to go with Strong Oppose because I cannot tell looking at the picture that the strip of land is connecting two separate land masses. That fact, IMO, takes away all EV from this picture. An overhead shot would probably be the best way to illustrate Isthmus. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The geocoding of the image would let anyone doubtful check for themselves. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But if someone looks at the article to find out what an isthmus is, this picture will mislead them. Or at least not give them the whole picture. And if they didn't know what an isthmus is to begin with, they aren't going to be doubtful and check the geocoding. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think the caption takes care of that. But I'm sure a satellite image wouldn't be mutually exclusive with this one. They could jointly illustrate the article. But it seems that you're okay with the image illustrating Bruny Island. So the question you're raising seems to be not about whether this picture should be featured (its inclusion in Bruny Island would be enough), but whether it should be included on isthmus at all, never mind what its status should be. Is that correct? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the picture shows far too little of Bruny Island to have substantial EV there. I don't mind its inclusion in Isthmus (although I think a better image can be found) since it's the only thing we have now. I just don't think it meets criterion 5: "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." Rather than enhancing understanding, I find that this picture misrepresents isthmuses and may cause the reader to think that any strip of land between bodies of water is an isthmus. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The isthmus is a defining characteristic of the island and has enc in the article context. Furthermore Bruny Island is about an hours drive from one end to the other, not really possible to get a photograph of the lot.
 * The answer to this question should have been yes, there's even an example of this listed in the Isthmus article, namely Madison Isthmus. Kmusser (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original if that's how NS remembers the colors. It doesn't look unnatural to me, depending on the time of day.  Fletcher (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As of now, both images are sRGB converted for better judging the differences between edits. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support both nice. —  Aitias  // discussion 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support with preference to the one that the creator feels has the true colours --Muhammad (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original. There's no reason to assume the colors in the original were unnatural making an edit unneeded. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To whoever is closing this, don't forget to take into account most of the initial edit supports were prior to the sRGB conversion of the original. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original Beautiful. --Chasingsol(talk) 06:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)