Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Forest fire

Forest fire
Created by US Forest Service, appears in fire. 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support. - Zafiroblue05 00:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe this image is particularly striking in any way, other than the obscenely wide angle. This image hardly captures the essence of a forest fire (i.e. how big they can get, how fast they can move, how much destruction they can cause), and it has a number of image quality issues. First off, the image needs to be cropped to remove the black border on the left. Secondly, this image has very low detail; with a subject as (potentially) detailed as this one the compression and low resolution really detract from it. The flames look like an enormous yellow blob, and the trees look "poofy". The angle at which the photographer took the photo is unbalanced, and makes me feel like I'm going to tip over... surely there are better photos of forest fires than this one! --mdd4696 00:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments above. &#126; MDD4696 (talk &bull; contribs) 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Looks nice. sikander 05:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Didn't we already have another better forest fire FP? - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Indeed, we have Image:Deerfire.jpg. LordViD 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with first comment. Doesn't really show the scale or presence of a fire. Diliff 19:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can't begin to compare to the current FP. D e nni &#9775;  02:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, i agree that the previous fire pic is far superior. -Lanoitarus 04:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ( − ) Oppose I also agree that the existing fire photo is much better. --Fir0002 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed one is taken at an odd angle. Enochlau 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - agree with above; the second photo has too much emphasis on the dark foreground. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The second one is already featured :) Enochlau 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, mea culpa. I guess I would have opposed that one, eh? :-) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I actually like it better in many ways than the other forest fire picutre. However, the image quality is not the best. Black lines, too fuzzy, etc. gren グレン 09:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it appears like it was taken with a fisheye lens, which completely distorts the image. Also, the background fire is just a monotonous glow, no detail can be discerned from it. Tito xd (?!? - did you read this?) 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

