Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shiveluch

Shiveluch Volcano

 * Reason:Huge EV, excellent resolution and quality, practically all noise has been removed by Noodle snacks. This is an edit, so I would like to see if it passes before the original is removed. Almost as good as the Mount Cleveland image.
 * Articles this image appears in:Shiveluch (if passed)
 * Creator:Expedition 15 crewmember, edited by Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --&mdash; Sunday  Scribe  00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though looking aesthetically nice at a smaller resolution, the general low quality (noise/faint square-shaped artifacts) makes me oppose.  Spencer T♦C 00:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the editing process seems to have left visible artifacts in the image -- just look in the tan-colored plume for instance. Readers might want to check the original for comparison .  Showing the junction point of two volcanic lines, the image is encyclopedic as well as aesthetic, and not replaceable as it's taken from orbit.  The original is not extremely high quality but I wonder if it's salvageable?  Caption is also way too long and should be moved into the article (which really needs it). Yet, it seems to have been copied from NASA.  Anyone know if it's standard practice to put a disclaimer in noting the text is from a PD source, not a Wikipedian?  Lastly, I doubt the caption is accurate in a few places.  First, could the summit rocks be only 65,000 years old?  That seems like a bit of an eyeblink, geologically.  On the other hand, I take it the summit rocks of a volcano would be the youngest.  But the 3,200 mile peak noted for the summit is definitely wrong... the photographer would be looking up at it from the ISS!    Fletcher (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know people in some countries use the comma instead of the decimal point, right? I think 3.2 miles wouldn't be an unreasonable elevation. --Itub (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense; I thought it might be 3,200 feet which seemed too small. Strangely the text comes from NASA, although probably NASA got it from someone else. Fletcher (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Kamchatka has >15,000 foot peaks de Bivort 07:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article says 3,283 meters. So the comma was really for thousands, and not for decimals, but the unit was wrong? --Itub (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Opppose - Although an interesting shot from a good angle the quality of the photo is very poor. Also, the caption is probably too long. (Giligone (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Oppose Artefacting and its too dark IMO. --Abdominator (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to low technical quality explained by Spencer above. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)