Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Raindrops off the Golden Gate Bridge

GGB Reflection in Raindrops

 * Reason:Aesthetically and artistically beautiful, good example of lenses, and fallen rain drops. it also displays a high level of technical skill, and high resolution.
 * Articles this image appears in: Rain, Refraction, Lens
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator Zidel333 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Question – What is the encyclopedic value of this image? – Ilse@ 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia use can extend to an excellent example of reflection, as well use in the Golden Gate Bridge (perhaps as a gallery), lense (planoconvex?), raindrops, image flipping, etc. Zidel333 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Object. Picture is currently only used in the rain article where it adds no encyclopedic value. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Added to refraction.  howcheng  {chat} 06:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Enc value is acceptable for the article's that it's in, and technically very sound.  Sing  Cal  17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A breathtakingly beautiful image, but I can't see the value of it here. Try commons? Wow: I somehow totally ignored the articles it was being used in, somehow thought it was for the Golden Gate Bridge article. Support. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia should and does surprise, as well as being purely factual. This is well photographed, surprising and memorable. It is a good illustration of the way surface tension creates a lens effect. A definite yes vote. ProfDEH (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment that is really cool. Guest9999 (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to support it then ;)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * weak Oppose - doesn't illustrate rain. Illustrates droplet, or refraction, but not rain per se. de Bivort 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * May I please ask, if you read the caption? I'm afraid I have not noticed anywhere in the caption that it claims to illustrate the rain.On the other hand rain droplets belong to rain (there are no rain with no droplets). That's why the image might be good for rain article as well as it is good for refraction article.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops - space out on it being included in refraction already. It claims to illustrate rain above in the "articles this image appears in" section. As an illustration of refraction it is non-ideal. I would prefer a more diagramatic photo with simpler geometry. de Bivort 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * May I please thank you for not getting upset with my comment and changing your vote?I've added the image to lens too. I'm not sure it will be allowed to stay there, but I hope it will. IMO the image might find the use for the explaining of the phenomena to school kids, for whom diagramatic photo with simpler geometry might be a little bit boring.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support A very good image with the great composition, high quality and high encyclopedic value.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and taken by an awesone photographer ;-) --Dschwen 00:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course! May I please count your comment as support? I mean after we figured out the difference between crepuscular rays and shadows ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support It illustrates the point of refraction well, and its eye-catching. I'm all for it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A well-made diagrammatic picture for refraction would be great, but I think a well-made photo like this, which shows the effects of refraction in an interesting way, is also valuable. Mila, are you working on a book of optical phenomena photographed on the Golden Gate? Matt Deres (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,Matt. Thank you for your question. I am not working at any book and I never will. I just like to take pictures and atmospheric optics is one of my favorite subjects. I've always wanted to see the Spectre of the Broken. At one point I considered to go to Broken, Germany just to see it, but then I realised that San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge in particular is the great place to see these rare phenomena. May I please also thank you for forgiving me my ignorance? (I believe you know what I'm talking about.)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral Illustrates articles it is in well, but it would be better if it was at a higher resolution. --Dave (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)