Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:USA 10654 Bryce Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg

Bryce Canyon

 * Reason:Affect with wonder, really good quality
 * Articles this image appears in:Bryce Canyon National Park, Geology of the Bryce Canyon area (added 6/8/08)
 * Creator:Luca Galuzzi


 * Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - very encyclopaedic, stunning, technically of a very high quality and has a good caption. Should be placed higher up the article, methinks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support What he said. Clegs (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Support  A stunning view; a shame about the minor drawbacks like the small bush in the lower left that is just a green blur. Matt Deres (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading the various comments below, I have decided to switch to Neutral. Some good points about EV have been raised and there are minor technical issues as well, but I can't quite bring myself to oppose. My earlier support was probably unduly influenced by the thing pictured rather than the picture itself. Matt Deres (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Picturesque and very nice. High enc. and good view. Spencer  T♦C 02:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Wonderful colour and depth, a wonderful landscape Capital photographer (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article already has an FP, and this one is only in a gallery -> no additional EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - the other FP is kinda blurry, and not as spectacular - I'm thinking in nominating it for delisting. diego_pmc (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think that photos that only appear in galleries add enough value to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Image has been placed in the main body of an article where it supports the text. Guest9999 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a problem with the article then? Capital photographer (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am addressing the concern of Guest9999 and Papa Lima Whiskey of that this photos only appear in galleries not adding enough value to the article seems unreasonable becoz importance Bryce Canyon National Park is only due to of Bryce Canyons and only because to of this photo is not placed at appropriate place the importance of this canyons should not be disregarded. i am inviting all concern peoples who are interested in this photo to render  legitimate placed  place for this photo. Alokprasad84 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Criterion 5 of the featured image criteria states that the image must add value to an article (and hence add value to the encyclopaedia). In my opinion whilst galleries can add value to an article the fact that an image is only found in a a gallery and not in the main body of the article supporting the text means that it does not add enough to the encyclopaedia to be considered featured content. I'm not saying that this image couldn't become featured I just don't think it meets the criteria at the moment. Guest9999 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Criteria 5 has nowhere mention that image must add value to article but if present it will be given priority. i am not against image should add value to article. this image helps readers to understand an article. is it not? Alokprasad84 (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "A featured picture...Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." - emphasis added. In this instance there are many other photos already in the article that illustrate the park, that they are not of the same technical or artistic standard doesn't really affect how much they help readers understand the article - they provide adequate illustration. For whatever reason the editors who created, maintain and improve the page have chosen to leave this image out of the main body of the article, galleries are routinely removed from articles for various reasons (to achieve featured status, policy reasons or just as general clean up) and I think a featured image should have the status within the encyclopaedia that removing it from an article (without replacement) would be detrimental to the readers understanding - for this image that is not currently the case. Guest9999 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He meant that we could simply move the pic out of the gallery, and that's it. I would change the current FP with this one, for example. diego_pmc (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a good chance that it wouldn't succeed. Some articles are being watched by a larger number of people. The idea is the right one, though, since an FAC nomination could lead to the gallery being removed from the article. I don't think we should be promoting images that will become ineligible as soon as the article goes to FAC. The only way to prevent that is to either replace the current "general illustration" picture at the top of the article, or create encyclopaedic value for this image. The chance of that may be slim. Let's analyse it for a second: the top image is a panorama, which is a more comprehensive illustration of the subject than this image. The other images each have very specific EV that none of the other images have, but the image nominated here doesn't show anything specific, it's just a general picture of Bryce Canyon. It's simply not needed in the article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Commment. Regarding enc value, the gallery caption for this image says "Thor's Hammer formation", suggesting that it has enc value separate to whether it is the lead image or in a gallery. Pstuart84 Talk 15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But there is no mention of Thor's Hammer formation in the article so no indication of what it is or what if anything makes it a special or important formation as the lead article in a Thor's Hammer (Bryce Canyon) article I would not oppose, if the formation was important enough to have a section devoted to it in the main Bryce Canyon article and the image supported that text I would not oppose. As it is I do not know if the formation is an notable or significant feature of the canyon and the fact that it isn't mentioned in the article and the image is in a gallery suggests it isn't - especially in a featured article that should comprehensively cover the subject. However valuable an image potentially is if it doesn't add to the body of the article I don't think it should be featured. A featured image should help answer a persons questions, what does this look like? how does this work? at the moment this photo just cause readers to ask them. Guest9999 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support beautiful and nice mood Blieusong (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not outstanding in the article, and while technically ok, it is of rather low resolution I bet it mostly gets support for the nice weather, and for bryce canyon being a beautiful place... --Dschwen 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support well done. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent shot; I think in an article where there are a lot of similar images, once one or two are made featured pics then they can be rightfully placed in more prominent positions. -- Schcambo aon scéal? 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All the images currently in the main body of the article depict specific things about the park (e.g. markings, wildlife, footpaths) which help to illustrate the content of the article, these couldn't really be replaced by this image even if it is of a higher technical and artistic standard. Guest9999 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I've added this photo to Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, where it nicely illustrates hoodoo formation in the Claron (Pink Cliffs) formation there. This should raise the encyclopedic value of this exceptionally fine photo. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that this image does that already? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a nice one, too, but it's in a different article. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)