Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Noctilucent clouds

Noctilucent clouds
Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 23:11:34 (UTC)
 * Reason:good quality and encyclopedic value
 * Articles in which this image appears:Noctilucent clouds
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics
 * Creator:Martin Koitmäe


 * Support as nominator --K731 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I'm sure this is a great representation of the cloud type and it's quite pretty but it's too dark for me to give it a full support... I know this might result in someone pointing out that it needs to be dark to capture this effect, but it still is too dark for me to give full support to sorry... gaz hiley .co.uk  08:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in the thumbnail I thought there were artifacts but in full size I saw those were stars. Those are stars right? I find it of very good quality. Foldedwater (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not seeing the EV. What's this adding that the lead image hasn't already shown? J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead image has rather low resolution compared to this one and focuses more on the 'scenery' than the clouds. K731 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If this one does a better job of being the lead, it should, y'know, be the lead. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead image is just gorgeous and is a portrait instead of a landscape. There could be more reasons for being in the lead than being feature worthy. Foldedwater (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, like I say, where's the EV in this one? J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be concerned with criteria 5: Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. I don't really see any problems with that - the image is used in the article and helps readers to understand the phenomenon. What I can't understand is that how come all the encyclopedic value is reserved to the lead image. I don't think that the same criteria can be used to judge the encyclopedic value of different types of images: there could possibly be a number of featured images of, say Fridtjof Nansen, a very notable person, but speaking of noctilucent clouds - all the images of the subject will inherently look pretty much the same. Sure, the composition and artistic value can vary a lot, but you can't have ten completely different images with huge encyclopedic value, which is possible with Nansen. So, how can you say that the second image doesn't add anything 'that the lead image hasn't already shown' , when you could also say it the other way around? Composition wise the current lead image probably fits the infobox better, but that doesn't mean that the other images in the article are worthless (and the article definitely isn't crowded with images). Then it comes down to technical details - the nominated image has 7.7 MP and is of good technical quality, the current lead image is also of good quality but has mere 0.4 MP. K731 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Criterion 5 is my concern, yes. If this is the best illustration of the subject as a whole (as opposed to an illustration of a particular issue) then, I ask again, why is it not the lead image? It's pretty much redundant to the lead image, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support high EV, high quality. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support well done, beautiful picture. Cacophony (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, and I don't think this is the place to argue about image placement within the article. Sort that out on article talk please (if you must). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is not the placement in and of itself, the point is that it shows exactly the same thing as another image used more prominently. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But the other image isn't eligible due to size, so I don't see how this affects FPC. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, to draw a comparison, you would be happy to support an image of a person that merely showed what they look like used in an article body when a similar image is used in the lead but "isn't eligible due to size"? I'd personally say it was fairly clear that the image in question had limited EV in that case, and I'm not sure I really see the difference here. Yes, images used in the article body will often have wonderful EV, but when they're redundant to the lead image... J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of them have the same EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would a third portrait have the same EV? A fourth? J Milburn (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. The EV of an image is not affected by where it appears in an arbitrary sequence. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So you would be quite happy to promote ten pictures of a person that all merely show what he or she looks like, as all "of them have the same EV"? J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed that at 19:08 on the 4th, above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't, you said nothing about promoting ten pictures of a person. You just mentioned how another image used in noctilucent clouds is smaller than the nominated image. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But the present picture is actually a better depiction of the clouds than the current lead image is. I am going to switch them. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ISS image has much better EV, since you can see how high they are in the atmosphere. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Taken with a 270mm analogue equivalent tele lens according to EXIF. I think that needs saying, otherwise, yes, they would seem very high. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that something that can be seen in the image (just the image alone)? If it is something that has to be computed from the metadata, from this one it can also be computed. From the latitude and date(time) you get how deep is the sun in the horizon, and with the diffraction of the atmosphere it tells you a lower bound for the altitude of the illuminated clouds. Foldedwater (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you mean the apparent altitude... and I think I agree with you. In this one they don't seem to be that high. Foldedwater (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Excellent shot.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din\ talk 18:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)