Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Redoubt

Mount Redoubt Erupting

 * Reason:Another totally irreplaceable image of a volcano erupting (see Image:MtCleveland ISS013-E-24184.jpg) which I found. Since few people are willing to go near a volcano while it's erupting, let alone try and take pictures of it, is incredibly rare. This one isn't great quality, but it has a really, really good view of the eruption column, which has huge EV. It is small, at only 1,024 × 689pix, but the EV totally surpasses that.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mushroom cloud, eruption column, Mount Redoubt (Alaska)
 * Creator:R. Clucas (USGS)


 * Support as nominator --&mdash; C  eranthor 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Source link is dead... MER-C 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Pretty grainy, even for such a notable image. The caption also needs a lot of work. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Edit 1 is better and I will support it on EV only. The caption needs work and I offer a new caption below:

Volcanic eruption at Mount Redoubt in Alaska on 21 April 1990. The eruption caused lahars, large mudflows that result from lava mixing with snow and ice. Dome collapses and sudden melting of snow and ice by pyroclastic flows caused these mudflows to be created on the summit and flow down the north side of the mountain.
 * I will only support if the caption is updated. I don't require mine to be used, only a new one that is rewritten.
 * ~ Wadester16 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support The caption could indeed be better, and if some post-processing could clear up the noise that would help alot. Overall though, it is an extremely rare image of an extremely rare and fascinating event. It definitly invites viewers to learn more about the subject. If the caption and/or the noise-issues could be corrected, I'll change it to a normal support. 82.74.125.34 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gah, I definitely have to remember logging in before these kinds of posts. Above weak support is mine. Fransw (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sorry, but I can't support on EV alone. I realize the circumstances in which it was taken, but the technical quality is just too far below our FP standards in my humble opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral. That's a considerable improvement, and I believe it's enough to meet the WP:WIAFP exception for unique images, so I can't really oppose anymore :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Support Oppose (Original), Support (Edit 1) - although I wish you would have taken it to Graphic Lab/Image workshop first, it's got a big huge EV and am willing to throw a weak support behind it
 * Preceding comment by me, RockManQ Review me 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support (Edit 1) solely because of high enc. Yes, it's grainy, the cloud is cut off at left, but you can't reshoot this. Please fix repetition in caption, it needs to be corrected for redundancies, there are repeated words, so this problem of tautology should be addressed... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a higher resolution version here (exotic file type warning, though Photoshop should be able to open this one). MER-C 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks - I uploaded the full-size "Edit 1", no grain reduction, but a few dust spots removed and slight level correction. Be sure to check full-size version, grain causes artifacts on image page. Re. grain: This was shot in 1990, and reckoning from the few white dust spots I removed, probably on hi-speed negative film. If someone wants to downsample and reduce grain, go ahead, you have the link... ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support edit 1 Good, but as Janke says above, there is a lot of grain.  Spencer T♦C 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)