Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Forestfire4

Forestfire4
Illustrates Wildfire. Striking and informative. 17/4/1  Jtkiefer  T - 02:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC) 
 * Nominate and support. - &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: it is most certainly striking. Semiconscious  ( talk  · home) 07:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * interesting light effect in the picture. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 12:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is striking, but is it actually useful? The focus of the picture seems to be on the sun, or the leafy trees, not the "charred remains"... -- Rmrfstar 23:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Stunning. Phoenix2 02:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Phoenix2 03:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - exceptional photo JoJan 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * obvious support Circeus 09:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support Fantastic photo. --Fir0002 09:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I admit that out of context it may be unclear as to what is depicted, but the fact that this is one incredible photograph can only be a bonus as used in the article. Jogloran 12:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, nice photo. --Shivu § Mesg 4 Mè §  16:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Though it doesn't illustrate much by itself, it's still striking enough to draw readers to the article. Balster neb 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- TomStar81 19:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, I like this picture very much, though I wish it was in higher resolution. Jay Ann 19:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Chris 73 Talk 22:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely stunning shot. Beautiful color and lighting. Alight 03:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Enochlau 11:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - outstanding - Adrian Pingstone 08:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Exceeds FP standards. Sango  123  22:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This photo has 'atmosphere' but shows little detail of the effects of a forest fire. Oska 11:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Call me crazy I just am not a fan of this one. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞  20:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I don't think wildfire when I see this image. Perhaps after a wildfire, but not a wildfire itself. Nice image, but it doesn't illustrate the subject well enough. - Longhair | Talk 05:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose The picture is great but my first thought was fog. It is not clear that these trees are burnt and does not depict a wildfire.  I would expect to see a picture of the actual fire not the aftermath. Sorry, David D. 18:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice. cohesion | talk 05:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral because I'm not allowed to vote Oppose. The Image looks like a fake. I see no fire nor burned trees --84.154.193.160 15:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why can't you oppose? Enochlau 06:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Great one. -- Darwinek 11:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 *  COPYRIGHT VIOLATION ? This photograph, "Sun, smoke and trees," was taken by Mark Thiessen for the National Geographic, in Siberia, Russia, in 2001. It appeared in the August 2002 issue of National Geographic, in the article Russian Smokejumpers. It was the National Geographic Photo of the Day for March 30, 2004. It is copyright of the National Geographic Society, 2004. Why is is tagged as being part of the Forestry Service collection?— Encephalon  | &zeta; 18:53:08, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The image was probably just being published on the government web site, but the National Geographic copyright looks correct. I'll remove the FeaturedPicture tag. -- Solipsist 12:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)