Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Petrified Forest National Park

Petrified Forest National Park
Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 00:08:24 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality, compelling view of the Petrified Forest National Park landscape
 * Articles in which this image appears:Petrified Forest National Park
 * FP category for this image:Landscapes
 * Creator:Finetooth


 * Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional (strong) support This photo begs for a more illuminating caption in order to give the (very) pretty picture EV. In banded formations such as this, the fossils clearly wouldn’t be in every type of layer; they would be in (I’m guessing) the reddish-brown layer, or some other layer. The caption should explain in which layer the fossils are found and how erosion has scattered them to the valley floor. Also, a tad too much EV is being sacrificed to include so much of those pretty clouds and deeply saturated sky; the crop should be a tad tighter vertically with all the ground preserved and less sky, which is purely decorative here; which is to say, this landscape—with two peaks left & right—could benefit from more of a “landscape” aspect ratio (now the valley floor). Greg L (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Greg L - will check back to see what happens before opposing/supporting... gaz hiley .co.uk  00:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Expanded caption. --Elekhh (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I can understand what Greg is saying, but I am also happy to support right now. Very attractive, solid EV. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - gorgeous. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional support per Greg, AND I would like to see an alt without the bottom (~10%) that is distracting. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a tad off the bottom too would be an improvement. I took the liberty of using the provided PDF from the National Park Service to revise the expanded caption. Naturally, I support the expanded caption, which I think gives the photograph extensive and thoroughly sufficient EV. Now I’d just like to see a version of the picture without so much of that sky; as I’m not even seeing a “horsey or ducky” up there, I don’t see the point of including so much sky & clouds. Greg L (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Oh… what the heck. I uploaded a cropped version myself. So…
 * Support Edit 1, cropped since issues in my now-struck conditional support are now addressed. Greg L (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative project, so I welcome your additional expansion, and Alt proposal. I personally still prefer the original. Do you support both versions with preference for your edit or only your edit? --Elekhh (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only Edit 1, Elekhh. Both a better caption and cropping out sky were a condition of my support. I surmise that is the same situation with Nergaal, who also felt that cropping was needed here. Hopefully, the others here who thought the original was fine will also find the cropped version to be cool beans. Greg L (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the sky crop is a tad too tight. Nergaal (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nergaal here - I suggest cropping just above the more grey of the clouds on the LHS... gaz hiley .co.uk  10:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After further thought I not only prefer the original but oppose Edit1. --Elekhh (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support either' JJ Harrison (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Support original without potentially misleading caption : Thank you for considering the image. It might seem odd that I would oppose promotion for my own photo. In fact, I would be happy to support the original. It is already a featured picture and a quality image on the Commons and has been chosen as Picture of the Day for March 11, 2011. However, the cropped version is washed out, not as nicely proportioned as the original, and removes important context, including parts of the sky and foreground. Furthermore, while the original description could be improved, I'm not convinced that the banded rocks of the Tepees are part of the Petrified Forest Member. Another NPS document says here, "The Blue Mesa Member consists of thick deposits of grey, blue, purple, and green mudstones and minor sandstone beds, the most prominent of which is the Newspaper Rock Sandstone. This unit is best exposed in the Tepees area of the park. The Blue Mesa Member is approximately 220-225 million years old." Are those red bands in The Tepees perhaps the Newspaper Rock Sandstone? I wrote a short description for the original because I didn't want to guess at the facts. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing to conditional support. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support original Edit's composition is too wide for an infobox image in my opinion.  Jujutacular  talk 10:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support original per nom-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)