Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Sandstone concretion

Sandstone concretion
A concretion is a volume of sedimentary rock in which a mineral cement fills the porosity (i.e. the spaces between the sediment grains). The image shows a Sandstone Concretion in the wall at the beach of Año Nuevo State Reserve. This concretion was too high in the wall to place a ruler, but I estimate it to be about 400 mm long. Please take a look at additional two images, which help you to see the settings of the image better: The first image shows the beach wall with two concretions and the second image is the wide angle image of the wall  This same wall has lots of Fossils inclusions:. The Concretions often get weathered out from the wall. At the next image you could see few spheres Concretions, which were found in a close proximity. Descriptions dating from the 18th century attest to the fact that concretions have long been regarded as fascinating geological curiosities. Because of the variety of unusual shapes, sizes and compositions, concretions have been variously interpreted to be dinosaur eggs, animal and plant fossils (called pseudofossils), extra-terrestrial debris or human artifacts. The concretion in the nominated image looks as a bone.

The image was created by mbz1. It appears in Concretions. I've nominated the image because IMO the facinating shapes of concretions, which made people from the 18th century wonder about them are still as mysterious now as they were then. IMO the image is a hiqh quality image with big encyclopedic and educational value.--Mbz1 15:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Comments:
 * Nominated by: Mbz1 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've very recently nominated this (October). Why did you withdraw you nomination then, and why are you nominating again now? --Malachirality 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question, Malachirality. I witdrawn the nomination because I was very sick and could not respond the comments and questions about the image. I'm nominating it again because I believe that the image is interesting enough to be considered for FP. Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's confusing to me Mbz1 says above that concretions are "still as mysterious now as they were then" when concretions gives a good technical explanation of how and when they form. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the angle that the viewer has with the wall; it's a bit disorienting and unpleasant to look at in intermediate resolutions.  However, Mbz1, I think you misunderstand the process of featuring pictures.  While it is useful to have as much information about the image as possible, it's best to get all of the information up on the image page and to get the images well integrated into articles before nominating them.  If users have to ask questions, then that means that your nomination was confusing or might contain and error.  It is not necessary for you to reply to every critique other users have about an image you nominate.  In other words, you being ill is not a reason to withdraw an image, as it's the image, not you, being assessed both here and at FPC.  Enuja  (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment Enuja. This particular image has been integrated into article concretions for the long time. I'm not going to nominate the image on FP and I withdraw request for review from here. Thank you all for looking and reading a rather long description.I'm sorry I took your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole reason I made that comment was because I don't think it makes any sense for you to ever withdraw nominations! Please don't "withdraw" it.   You know enough about your pictures that the ones you nominate always have something going for them.  Give them time to let other people comment without you replying to things that are not questions and without you suddenly withdrawing it.  Nominate it and let other people make the decisions about seconding it or featuring it after that.  Enuja  (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right.Thank you, Enuja.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

