Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fimmvörðuháls fracture

Fimmvörðuháls fracture

 * Reason:Was hanging previously at the picture peer review and saw no objections. Fantasy colors and generally an interesting process
 * Articles in which this image appears:Fimmvörðuháls, 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull
 * FP category for this image:Natural phenomena
 * Creator:Henrik Thorburn


 * Support as nominator --Brandmeister[t] 19:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I was thinking of nominating this myself, actually - it's a phenomenal image.  And it stays with you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It has plenty of EV, but the composition is pretty lousy really. I suppose safety was a factor, but it seems like a much better vantage point would have been on the cliffs in the foreground. It's hard to get a sense of scale though, not sure if the cliffs are literally right in front of the eruption or quite some distance from it. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Closer would have been better, but there is a ravine between where I took the photo, and the plateau in the foreground. The photo is taken with a 300mm lense and 1.6 crop factor sensor. I took other very similar photos like this and this showing a man walking on the snow just next to the smoke. But for some reason the first one spread, probably due to the explosion in the background. Boaworm (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, yeah, the caption says overview, but that's not really what it is. I find it somewhat confusing and the steam does not help (not the photographers fault though). As an illustration of the newsworthy eruption event I'd prefer featuring one of the image showing the large ash plume.--Dschwen 21:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support High EV for the combination of basaltic volcanism amid snow. The rarity outweighs compositional concerns for me. Ash plume photos are much more common than something like this. --Avenue (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this picture of essentially the same event is more visually impressive, though perhaps less informative. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 22:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as a fairly standard Strombolian eruption pic. It's nice too, but very different, and not as interesting to me as the nominated one. --Avenue (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (Conditional) Support Impressive. However, as this is en.Wikipedia, the caption should provide a plain-English pronunciation (like “FIM ver loush” and not the cryptic IPA stuff Wikipedia often uses). I assume the above post from Fcb981 is a "support" vote and not a comment? Greg L (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fimmvörðuháls article has an OGG recording of someone saying the name, so I don't see the need to include the pronunciation in the caption. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My above post was indeed a comment. In the absence of a bold "support" or "oppose" tag, posts are just comments. I suppose I could have clarified that it was a comment by adding a bold "comment" tag, but I didn't think there would be any confusion since I was simply suggesting an alternative to the nominated image, not judging it. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have seen the picture a number of times now and I can hardly make sense of what is happening. The picture Fcb linked to is much better IMO --Muhammad (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Well done photo, nice colors, high EV -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Nice atmosphere Hive001   contact  16:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could crank the whites up a bit. Hive001   contact  19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)