Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jökulsárlón

Jökulsárlón
Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 00:49:46 (UTC)
 * Reason:Outstanding quality, resolution, EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ice, Jökulsárlón, etc.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences
 * Creator:User:Tillea


 * Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note existing FP of this lagoon. Chick Bowen 01:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC) (and that it lends itself generally to impressive photography. Chick Bowen 01:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: But this is about Ice. It is an Ice block near the lagoon. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, perhaps you can see how, based on the caption, I might have been confused about that. Chick Bowen 01:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is a nice picture, the darkness caused by the strong low sun makes it very difficult to see much of this picture - it look a bit of careful study to confirm that it was definately sitting in water... The issue over the caption affects my vote as well - the caption definately seems to indicate this is about the bay, whereas the picture is actually a lump of ice that could be anywhere in the world... gaz  hiley  11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Caption changed; image already FP on Commons. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your update on my talk page. I have amended my oppose accordingly, however still oppose due to darkness issues... gaz  hiley  15:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the arctic, even in summer, the sun is fairly low down, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Eye catching, and shows the subject matter front-and-centre. E&Tau;&Gamma;&Xi;&Phi; 15:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyNotEtreo (talk • contribs)
 * Support, although a bit better focus would have been nice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose yes, a very nice image, but it is only an "eye catching" image and without EV for me, additional per Chick Bowen. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the way the image was created makes it unencyclopedic in nature. Artistc, yes but the issue for me is simply a lack of a clearly defined subject taken in a manner to allow the viewer to understand the subject better. I can't tell what the scale of the ice actually is or if it is in a natural setting or was placed there was by the photographer from their fridge (OK so that stretching a bit, but you get the gest of what I am saying) This could well be a piece of store bought ice. Nothing about this really seems natural to me by the way it was photographed.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support The water is incredibly dark but it's a good image and the main focus is fine.  Cat-five t  c   07:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is an adequate illustration of the subject with some interesting aesthetics. --Pine✉ 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 00:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)