Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hook echo 3

Hook echo
Voting period ends on 9 May 2017  at 20:40:46 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality, high EV, and adds significantly to its article.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Hook echo, Doppler on Wheels
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences
 * Creator:Josh Wurman/Center for Severe Weather Research


 * Support as nominator – Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – high-quality and high-resolution animation of what is sometimes called the most thoroughly documented tornado in history. I'll always be amazed by the "eye" of the tornado on display here. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - High quality image with excellent encyclopedic value. Mifter (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem to be the most valuable on the hook echo article nor the Doppler on Wheels article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The only other image in the DoW article is a 0.17mp photo of a vehicle carrying the instrument. Do you genuinely believe that's a better illustration of the technology in question? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't question my integrity. Question my votes by all means, but do try to be polite. Doppler on Wheels is a truck-based system. The article is about the mobile system. The picture I refer to illustrates the truck-based system well. The size is of image is irrelevant, that image is not up for FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd argue the article is as much about the project's findings and research as its infrastructure and logistics. It certainly should be, even if not now. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a system photograph and an output image would fall under two different scopes (compare Commons' VI). Both would be acceptable to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Question - Is this supposed to be animated? If yes, why not just have a video and thus provide a better approximation of the output? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support--Jobas (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose shouldn't this be a video, and not an image you have to click twice to see the animation? Mattximus (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A video form already exists: File:05june-dow7-wide2.ogv. I just find it to be rather unfulfilling in comparison to the image, especially with the reduced quality of the video compared to the image (click to play the video thumbnail and you'll see what I mean). With either form you have to click twice to animate at full resolution/quality, and given that the image provides better quality in a thumbnail I find the image form to be more practical. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 12:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - GIFs of this size just don't work for me. At least with a video you just need to click once to see the clouds move. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)