Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glaciers and Icebergs in high Arctic

Glaciers and Icebergs in high Arctic

 * Reason:A rare aerial view of the very remote region of High Arctic. The only image of the kind on Wikipedia, huge EV, good quality.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Glacier; Iceberg;Cape York (Greenland)
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose terrible CA oh wait, my mistake. :) Support as per Commons FPC on this image. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Noise and motion blur. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just asking, where exactly you see motion blur?--Gilisa (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That image is extremely rare, and was taken in a very harsh environment. Arctic is melting. Few years from now that image will become historic.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the image but can you tell me why we should promote this when we already have a very similar FP? --Muhammad (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not really similar. The image you pointing out to was taken from a ship. The nominated image was taken from a helicopter. Not only it provides a wider view of the area, but it also shows the parts of icebergs that are under the water. Many people do not realize that typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water. That's why the icebergs are so dangerous for navigation. It seems small and harmless above the water line, but most of the danger is hidden below.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does have few images of the icebergs, but the nominated image is the only aerial view (if we do not take into account NASA images taken from the space) of the icebergs.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks overprocessed. --Dschwen 16:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Added the edit. Now you sure could see the part below the water much better :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dschwen, you can find out more by looking at what I think is the actual original: File:Icebergs cape york 1.JPG. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Attempted recovery of overexposed icebergs makes them look posterized and grainy. Quite a shame,but I guess the sight must have been to stunning to think of setting the exposure compensation. We don't have many users flying to the arctic (Slaunger?) so I won't oppose, but rather abstain. --Dschwen 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know Slaunger took some rather nice images of icebergs, but I do not recall aerial view. Do you? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh no, that was just the only one coming to my mind who had been there (so he probably flew to the arctic, but didn't fly around there ;-) ). --Dschwen 03:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, if we have agreed that my image is the only one image of the icebergs taken from the air, you might reconsider your "abstain" and support the image :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are many things we only have one image of. That's not a sufficient criterium for FP status. --Dschwen 03:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support either, prefer edit 1 (although I wish it was cropped a little less tightly on the sides). The oblique aerial view gives a very different perspective to the other FP. --Avenue (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Papa Lime Whiskey. Factsontheground (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * support - It's a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons and is considered one of the finest images on commons - don't see why that wouldn't be the case here. Momma&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see more than enough difference between this and the one from the ship. I prefer option 1 as well but I am not an expert with photos.Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * support per Avenue I think. Worthwhile image & perfection in such a setting would be hard to achieve while enjoying the view :) -- Herby  talk thyme 08:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Great photo after all, noteable subject and more important-present aerial view. I didn't find signficant noise levels or blur in it.--Gilisa (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of the picture is blurred, and you can only see top part of icebergs - what appears to be the below-water part is merely a reflection... Study the shapes carefully and they are mirror images of the above-water ice shapes... High EV yes, and unique yes, but neither are enough to automatically grant FP status, as per Dschwen... Gazhiley (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Gazhiley-I realy think I miss something here, what do you find to be blurred? Also, on the contarary regarding what you refered as icebergs reflection. It first look as a reflection, but if you study it carefuly you will find that it isn't.--Gilisa (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire left side of the picture especially the "land" but also the individual icebergs are incredibly blurred when viewed at full res... A case in point for the reflection is the iceberg in the bottom right of the picture... The shape viewed on the water is a mirror image... Gazhiley (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see both reflections (brownish-grey) and submerged parts (light blue) for the nearer icebergs. The difference is perhaps clearest for the iceberg a little left of centre at the bottom of edit 1 - see the large blue projection to the left of it. In the middle distance and beyond, only reflections are visible. --Avenue (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok apologies where apologies due - there are one or two where you can see something below the water - certainly not 9 times the size ABOVE the water though, which one would expect when being told that they are 1/10th above and this pic shows it below... So not very EV there... But either way that blue tint is only viewable on a small handful, so I still say that this doesn't show the below the surface enough to support, and the afore-mentioned blur on the entire left side of the pic is still a problem for me... Gazhiley (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not about the size, it is about the volume, and I am not sure the volume and the size are corresponding in the icebergs.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok now you've lost me... I understood (I may be wrong) that 9/10ths of an iceberg was underwater... Certainly my comemorative Titanic wallposter I obsessed over when I was younger (and obsessed is exactly the right description here) had a "mock up" of the iceberg that the ship hit...  It showed that statistic and the iceberg they pictured used size as their way of describing the 9/10ths bit... Ie if an iceberg was 10metres above water, there would be 90metres below water... But I and whoever made that poster may have been wrong... Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying? Either way, the quality of the picture is too low for me... Gazhiley (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly I am not a big specialist in icebergs, but as I explained earlier IMO volume and size do not always correspond in other words the density below the water could be greater than the density above the water--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is nonsense obviously wrong. What does size even mean? Density should be roughly the same, making it 9/10 of the volume being submeged. You just cannot see all of the iceberg below the water line as the visibility in the water is not sufficient. --Dschwen 15:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: and actually Gazhiley is right. At least for the icebergs not in the immediate foreground we are definitely seeing reflections. Sorry, that means you kind of over-sold the picture a bit ;-) --Dschwen 15:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I said I was not specialist, but thanks for the explanation and for "nonsense" :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, rephrased ;-). Made my toenails roll up, as it should have for anyone with a bit of a physics background. --Dschwen 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "overselling" mainly comes down to one word, "the", as in "the part of the icebergs ...". Maybe this was due to non-fluent English? I assumed it was when I first read it, and I'm a bit stunned that people seem to have taken it literally.--Avenue (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Gazhiley. BlackCowboy9 (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the original image. Beautiful image, notable subject. Broccoli (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdraw--Mbz1 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 08:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator.  Mae din \talk 08:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)