Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sarychev Peak

Sarychev Peak
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 14:38:36 (UTC)
 * Reason:High EV and a generally good photo. The value heavily outweighs the technical limitations of this rare photograph.
 * Articles in which this image appears: Matua Island, Explosive eruption (alt)
 * FP category for this image:Natural phenomena
 * Creator:NASA


 * Support as nominator -- ceran  thor 14:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support although the image is somewhat noisy in the darker regions, it is not every day that you get to see a volcano erupting from a bird's eye view! Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Wow! The vapor dome around the ash cloud is amazing. Is there any more info about that? This picture should be featured in volcanoShroomydan. (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be an estimate on the altitude from where the photo was taken. Nergaal (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was taken by the International Space Station so 350 km up. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The image description for the alternative version covers this, and gives a lot more detail. --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose original; support alternative. The alternative version has better quality, most clearly in avoiding the burnt highlights in the vapour dome and the noise in the sea to the left of the eruption column. I'm not convinced that the colour changes introduced by the Flickr uploader are realistic, either. --Avenue (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The original upload was unrealistically bright, and that's why the image I nominated was created. At least for me, the alt loses the immediate "wow" factor because it's rather dark, but I do suppose it's a better edit. Either way, I like both images.  ceran  thor 12:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The original upload from Flickr had more immediate wow than either version here, too. That's fine in the Flickr context. But given Wikipedia's objectives, we put more emphasis on accuracy and technical quality than they generally seem to on Flickr. Maybe my edit is too bland (although the contrast is increased from the NASA original); I'd welcome further improvements. But I think it meets our criteria much better than the original nom. --Avenue (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is also a very cool animation from the series of pictures captured... You can see it here, or here (direct link to the .mov). - Zephyris Talk 00:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a version of it, but it's too small to be considered iirc.  ceran  thor 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The NASA animation given by Zephyris is mega-cool and really high quality. It would definitely be FP-worthy. Somebody should upload it! Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already uploaded (File:Sarychev Peak eruption on 12 June 2009, oblique satellite view.ogv), and is already a Commons FP. --Avenue (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, guess my lack of familiarity with videos showed there. I thought it was too small, but if it's FP-worthy we might as well add it.  ceran  thor 13:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The video is currently used in Sarychev Peak, FWIW. --Avenue (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support either per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose both The top image is a little tilted, the bottom image looks a little too much on the blue side, but otherwise they're good. If the color of the first picture could be combined with the orientation of the second, it'd be quite good, and IMHO would easily make Featured Picture status. VeryPunny 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about the colours, the original NASA photo might be a useful comparison. The alt was darkened, but the colours were otherwise unchanged from the NASA original. --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Caught my eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Which version is preferred?  Jujutacular  talk 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Original looks better (leaving the technicalities out). Nergaal (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Alternative is better. Also, it is a more faithful representation since the atmosphere always makes things appear bluer. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear, I prefer the Alternative. (And I do not see a large overexposed area on a key feature as a mere technicality.) --Avenue (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternative as per Purpy Pupple and Avenue. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Original is my vote here. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Original, better lightning.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To break the current tie in preference, I prefer the alternative, per Avenue.  Jujutacular  talk 22:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Placed in Sciences/Geology with the other volcanic eruption Makeemlighter (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)