Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fieldscape.jpg

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Mt. Rainier

Great picture which also describes perfectly Mt. Rainier National Park. Good choice for FP. This photo is of a peak just east of Chinook Pass. It appears in Mount Rainier National Park and it's taken by: Victor Szalvay

Re Nominate and support. - Arad 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its beautiful and descriptive. Some haze around the base of the peak, but this is unavoidable and forgivable. My only question: Is it really Mt. Ranier? I've never seen any photos with so little ice and snow on the summitt. SteveHopson 17:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I changed it (The Description). Arad 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per SteveHopson. Nauticashades 18:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Odd framing; this one seems (to me) like it should have been a landscape or square composition. Haze in mid-foreground seems strange -- I think it could be eliminated in Photoshop, but that might throw off the near foreground and top of the photo. Uninteresting foreground. -- Moondigger 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets my personal quality standards and in my opinion those of the FP criteria. Cat-five - talk 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's presently not used in Mount Rainier National Park, because it's uncertain if the mountain is in the park or not. The only peak east of Chinook Pass that's in the park is Naches Peak, and the map I've got doesn't show it as being that heavily forested. --Carnildo 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ~~The image's source [1] says that it is copyrighted. --Hetar 04:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)~~ Could be of higher resolution/quality, lighting is a little off. --Hetar 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The second page of his userpage [2] clearly states, "© This photo is public."~~ Nauticashades 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't a licensing statement. If he intends it to refer to licensing, he should make that clear with a valid licensing statement. The "©" symbol is contrary to the free licensing schemes Wikipedia requires. "This photo is public" could mean other things unrelated to copyright or licensing. -- Moondigger 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - On Flickr, "public" means anyone can see it, as opposed to "private" photos which are limited to people the user specifically designates. howch e ng {chat} 21:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many of his other pictures have Creative Commons liscenses. I doubt that he would selectively pick some to share, and some not to share (however, I could be wrong). Nauticashades 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        His profile page says clearly, "Some of my photos are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5." So he does pick and choose which ones to share and those he shares are under an incompatible license anyway. howch e ng {chat} 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I did not see that page. Well then, let's hope that he agrees to let us use them in an email. Nauticashades 12:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ineligible~~ -- licensing. howch e ng {chat} 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After email communication with the photographer, he has changed the licensing to cc-by-sa. howch e ng {chat} 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing particularly special, composition is awkward and not currently very useful as the subject is unidentified. Could also do with a more descriptive name. --Yummifruitbat 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. Lighting is weak. The top of the mountain is more boring than an average Rocky Mountain. Royalbroil 12:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but the pic on the bottom right of the mount rainer national park page looks like it's FP quality. If you want a FP of mt rainer nominate that one. Tobyk777 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That one was nominated not very long ago, but not promoted. There is already an FP of Mount Rainier though, here, albeit not really up to today's FP standards. --Yummifruitbat 12:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Support If and only if it finds a home in an article. Like the other Ranier image it's a bit small for my taste, but HQ enough IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image to mount rainier national park article. Arad 15:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing would've made me happier than to strike the weak to make that a full support, but please please please don't edit other people's votes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry. I'll never do that again. I'm glad to see it didn't upset you. Sorry again. Arad 04:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom and per above. Don bertone 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Royalbroil - doniv 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]