Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mikumi Panorama

Mikumi National Park Panorama

 * Reason:A good quality (QI at commons}, high resolution, encyclopedic image of a remote part of the world. Neither commons nor wikipedia has any other images of the park and very few, if any commercial versions are available elsewhere. The picture in my opinion, does a good job of illustrating the landscape and vegetation and also shows the road which is used by tourists to explore the park. A close inspection of the image also shows a minivan of tourists. The image also shows a distinctive feature of this park, the Uluguru Mountains which appear in the mid-ground of the original image, adding more value to the image as this illustrates the geography of the park.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mikumi National Park, List of protected areas in Tanzania
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support just like at WP:PPR. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original Good find. Durova Charge! 23:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Not bad at all. In fact, great! &mdash; ceranthor  ( strike ) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, preference to original. Informative, good quality shot of that part of the world. While it's unfortunate that those trees are cut-off at the top in the original, it's not a huge issue that damages EV, and I feel the original with the road running up the left has stronger composition. Did you think the colours in Alves enhanced contrast version on PPR were unnatural looking, as it seemed to have a little more 'pop' to me? --jjron (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The colours in Alvesgaspar's version seem better but after careful examination of the pictures with other pictures I have, I believe the original version has the true colours. Muhammad (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks good in thumb, but you're right, when you look bigger the colours here do seem more natural. --jjron (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original. We're definitely lacking in high quality images from Africa, and this one is excellent. Slightly soft/blurry to the left of the road, but not a major issue as the detail is there. Crop not as good as the original IMO. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original Nothing to be gained chopping half of it off. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support original - I really prefer this edited version as I believe that the washed-out colours of the original are the result of a slight overexposure. A full support if that version is nominated. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it looks very washed out or overexposed. I can't speak for how the scene actually looked, but I can imagine being there as it has a lot in common with the Australian outback scenery (and presumbly parts of Portugal/Spain too). The shadows look far too dark in your edit IMO and the grass is a bit too red-tinged. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit. I like the wide vista of the original. --Janke | Talk 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original, weak oppose edit - I don't see any real reason to choose a lower-resolution, cropped version when the original is there. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original per nom. Kind of a pity that there isn't any wildlife visible in the picture, since that seems to be one of the things that this location is notable for.  Spikebrennan (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Granted, it would be nice, but it is unrealistic to expect much in the way of wildlife in what is in essence a panoramic landscape. Wildlife is spread across a massive geographic area. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)