Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mammatus cloud panorama.jpg

Mammatus Cloud Panorama
A short interlude between insect noms :-) Quite a dramatic skyline of relatively uncommon clouds.
 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Although the size of the right side forground black is on the big size I see no other problems with the picture. Keep up the good work. -Fcb981 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I like the contrast between the grayish white sky to the pitch black objects on the ground. The cloud looks surreal. However, I believe the alternative is better used for the article about the Mammatus clouds since only that certain cloud is featured while the original have maybe two or more other clouds. I might be wrong however.--BirdKr 13:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Full panorama. Very striking, and I agree that the contrast looks very nice. --Havocrazy 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * question -were the clouds at the bottom part of the sky really that dark? they are very very inky (for clouds). Debivort 08:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the image is that it's raining in the distance where the clouds are so dark. This is an effect which is best seen in the plains (and which I hadn't seen clearly myself until I visited the desert in southern Idaho). Mak (talk)  16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen mammatus clouds before several times, but never with such high contrast between their light and dark regions, but if you can verify it... Debivort 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for late reponse, the clouds were an excellent example and had very good definition. With a polarizer and correct exposure values the captured image was pretty close to this. Not saying that I didn't use some contrasting to enhance the visibility of the clouds, but I don't feel that this detracts from the image at all. --Fir0002 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, you need a description, etc. gren グレン 11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support with better caption.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support original Someone get the cloud experts in to add a description. Also, you should stick to the template for creating FPC nominations. The "articles this picture appears in" info is missing. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As discussed when the new template generator thingy came in, it was by no means consensus to use it. Adding the "articles this picture appears on" is not a requirement and is rather ridiculous, as no one should judge the image on the thumbnail on WP:FPC, but should go to the image page, where interested users can easily see the File Links section. --Fir0002 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if someone removes the picture from the article while it's under discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't look like a better caption is forthcoming. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What more do you want from a caption? It states what it is and where it was taken - any more and that's what the article is for! As a side note I notice you're supporting the arachnid nom above this which has a total of 1 extra word (number actually) in it's caption than this. But oh well if you really want something bigger. But may I remind you this is WP Featured Picture Candidates, not caption candidates and the primary focus of this page is identifying the best images not the best captions. All the caption on this page should have is what would be necessary in an article where it is placed. And in this case it is silly to restate what the article says like the caption on the Tawny Owl nomination. I think when I get a chance I'll go into this with more depth on the talk page, but for now I've tacked on a little bit from the article to accommodate your demands. --Fir0002 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to be come truculent. I see four editors here who have asked for a better description, and jfwiw, a good caption is part of the FP criteria, so the objection is perfectly valid. Oh and btw, the top quarter of the picture needs to be cropped. ~ trialsanderrors 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Original Tomer T 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose by questions went unaddressed.Debivort 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't find the subject particularly mind-blowing and the whitebalance is uneven across the picture, causing a slightly visibly stitching seam. --Dschwen 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this picture could be promoted if it had a better caption. Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either. Move my vote if it's in the wrong place. The caption is fine, because as Fir said, any more would be reinstating the article. I agree with BirdKr in that the alternate would be better to describe the article, but the original provides some perspective. -- Tewy  15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what captions do. ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not for the purpose of promoting an image or not. I think as long as the caption on the nomination page says what's unique about the image, or otherwise details the image itself, the POTD caption can supplement the nomination caption with information from the article. But not promoting an image because it doesn't have a full POTD caption doesn't seem like a good reason to me. -- Tewy  05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a very good reason, because it shifts the burden of writing the POTD caption from the scheduler to the nominator. If you want your picture promoted it's perfectly fair to request that you also provide the context in which it will be presented on the front page. ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original only, very nice image. No problem with the caption. ~ Arjun  02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original But since some people are rather particular recently, I guess an extended caption would be appropriate..... -Wutschwlllm 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)