Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/South Island after 2003 blizzard

South Island after the 2003 blizzard.
Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 12:51:52 (UTC)
 * Reason:Illustrates our Alpine Fault article well
 * Articles in which this image appears:Alpine Fault
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Views of Earth from space and satellites
 * Creator:Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC


 * Support as nominator --Avenue (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Great EV and plenty of 'wow'. Nautica Shad es  13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good to me. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This image illustrates something geological that is related to the fault, but it does not really illustrate the fault. The second image in the article probably illustrates the fault better and that is the only use of the image.  If this were for a storm notable enough to have its own WP article, I might consider the EV sufficient.  I just don't really see the EV of this image that does not directly illustrate the only article it is in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This image illustrates the strong topographic relief along the fault scarp, along with its course through the South Island. It even shows the transitions into different plate boundary regimes at each end, if you know what to look for, especially its branching into the broad Marlborough Fault System in the north. If by the second image you mean the map of southern Zealandia, I don't see either being redundant. The map illustrates the wider Zealandian and plate tectonic context of the fault, but doesn't show the topography well. (The map also seems to show the Alpine fault extending much further north than it really does.) --Avenue (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm prone to support, but have a comment to make. There are three very similar images illustrating this article, South Island, and Southern Alps. The encyclopedic value of such an image is undoubted, and while I'm not prone to shoehorn images into articles, I wonder if any would be better replaced with another. I don't know enough about the eastern boundaries to comment meaningfully on whether it could illustrate Southern Alps, but think it obscures too much of Banks Peninsular to illustrate South Island. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the nominated image is not the best illustration for the Southern Alps article, either. Even the current picture there has a bit much snow IMO, especially in the south (Fiordland) and southeast (e.g. the Remarkables). I do think the nominated picture is by far the best of the three for the Alpine Fault article. But that's no surprise: I added it in 2006, replacing the picture that now graces the Southern Alps article. --Avenue (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this better than the other two. However, I don't see the encyclopedic value because the explanation given above for its importance is not even in the article.  So it is illustrating something the article does not discuss.  I.E., I don't know what a scarp is, the word is not in the article and you are telling me the EV is related to the scarp.  The caption in the article and the caption/reason in this nomination need to make very clear why a single-use image has EV.  Aren't there non-geopgraphical articles that this would add EV to?  I am by no means a reg here, but I am a proponent increasing the use and visibility of nominated articles since these are suppose to be the best we have to offer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At least for our purposes here, scarp=escarpment (linked in the caption above). While the article certainly needs work, I believe that the image's main EV (that it shows how the fault forms the sharp western edge of the Southern Alps) is explained clearly enough. --Avenue (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I prefer the image at escarpment (File:Alpine Fault SRTM (vertical).jpg), which shows us a fourth example of this subject. If any one of this subject should be an FP, it is that one, IMO.  I am not a technical judge, but on basic assessment of aesthetics, this image finishes in 2nd of 4 compared to others.  However, among those that show the hole island it is first of three.  With such an abundance of choices to illustrate this speciific example of this subject, I think I will continue to oppose unless an additional use of the image is found.  Would it be appropriate in blizzard, winter storm, snow, climate, meteorology or some such to add a minor bit to its EV even though it would be replaceable in any such uses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Fair enough. As an isolated image, I prefer that one too (although I miss the lakes). I'd support it in the escarpment context, but I think the nominated image has more EV for the Alpine Fault, due to its greater realism and broader view. --Avenue (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at all the images in the related articles more closely, I see that it pretty much depicts the escarpment in a way that someone not familiar with the topic would understand. I am beginning to feel that it does have some EV, but I remain unconvinced that a single use image that could easily be incorporated into several articles has significant EV.  It certainly does not have any more EV than the main images at South Island, and Southern Alps and it may have less EV than File:Alpine Fault SRTM (vertical).jpg or File:Alpine Fault SRTM.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. I will just point out that an FP only needs to have EV in a single article. --Avenue (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per Avenue's first answer to TonyTheTiger above - you had me at "this"... Plus in this picture it kinda looks a bit like a willy! ;-) hehe Gazhiley (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support almost looks like Scandinavia with the way the cloud cover is. Haljackey (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I've edited the caption a little to make clearer the fault in the image, which addresses my concerns about encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I didn't agree that your edit to the article made it clearer, though, so I've reworded the caption to try to address both our concerns. --Avenue (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  T · C 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)