Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wildfire

Wildfire
Drama, colour, chance and pretty strong composition - stunning. There are some significant compression artifacts, despite the large file size, but I couldn't find a better version (there might be one out there somewhere). Illustrating wildfire the photo is by John McColgan of the USDA. - Solipsist 18:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - Solipsist 18:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice.  BTW, are those elk two specimens of elk or elk?  ;) &mdash; Chameleon 19:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't know - I can't tell my elk from my elbow. But according to Jacobolus' link they are apparently cow elk?!? -- Solipsist 20:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that just means they are female. I think they look like red deer.  &mdash; Chameleon 20:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

14 / 1 --Spangineer ( háblame ) 01:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC) 
 * Support but a higher resolution picture would be even better. --CVaneg 19:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Look at this page --jacobolus (t) 19:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * support but i'd also like a higher res if we can get it. also, can we site on the photo's page the original location where it was obtained from as to make it easy for people to verify the accuracy of the licence? Cavebear42 19:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although a Hi-res shot would be nice. TomStar81 00:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose WB 06:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This photo was actually taken about 20 miles from where I live (I was evacuated at the time, I think). The elk are not elk, but are cow elk, and the resolution you see there is probably the original. Amazingly, the pixelated, blown-up version was printed on a two-page spread in Time magazine at one point, and it has been featured elsewhere as well . I'm certain the pic is PD as a saw an interview with Mr. McColgan, where he commented that he didn't mind that he had taken the photo on the job and that it was therefore public. I'll try and scare up a source. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 09:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support (including higher and lower res versions). No doubt an image like this is going to have artefacts. But the composition and color make it striking enough to be featured. Mgm|(talk) 11:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Great photo, but I think a close up of the deer in the river would have made a better composition. --Fir0002 07:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Now that's cool! -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Dramatic! Pollinator 22:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, wow. Kaldari 21:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Wonderful shot of the fire. The elk are a bonus. -Hoekenheef 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)