Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sinkhole

Sinkhole [edit]

Used in article Sinkhole. Photo of a large-form sinkhole in a geographically important area for this phenomenon. The photo itself illustrates the size and recreational uses of the sinkhole.

Nominate and support. - Xlandfair 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Good picture, but do those people want to be wikistars? I know I wouldn't want to be on the front page in my bathing suit (; --Colle||Talk-- 06:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not easy to identify any of the people, and those who can be contacted were in the room when the photo was nominated. (: Dave 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Great example of a sinkhole, interesting photo without taking focus from the geology. Dave 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Really too fuzzy in full size. Rescale to 50-75% or so? No info would be lost... --Janke | Talk 09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not good quality and not particularly stunning... though I'd like to be the guy on the rope. gren グレン 02:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over exposed and blurry. Also I'm too bothered by the unattractive trash lying around, even if it is encyclopedically relevant in illustrating one effect of human appreciation of natural beauty spots! ~ Veledan • Talk 19:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe it's a photograph of what Florida culture really is, being I live here. I have spent some days at a cold (63*F) spring in Orlando. The picture is filled with such action and life. The unattractive trash is part of that scenery. --x1987x 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Asarkees 00:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC). Veledan's statement on unattractive trash is contradictory, and he/she acknowledges that. I live in Florida, and this is an extremely accurate statement on the nature of what was once a pristine limestone karst. The perspective is interesting, the content is exciting, and the statement demands attention.[reply]
- Reply to above and below: a Featured picture should be attractive as well as accurate. If the trash round this sinkhole is inescapable, choose a different sinkhole if you want to make an FP ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good action, trash is part of the setting, just like at the quarries here in Minnesota. -Ravedave 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- image subject, being the sinkhole itself, is partially missing from the photograph at bottom. - Longhair 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. It's nice enough I suppose, but it's not really FP material. Also, Longhair correctly points out the "missing tail" aspect of the framing for the shot, which is especially inexcusable since there is much "wasted" space near the top of the photo. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call that wasted space at all. The sinkhole top of the sinkhole is far above the top of the water. Your "wasted space" is how the depth of the sinkhole is shown. Dave 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, changing vote to Neutral. It's not wasted space because it does give a sense of scale and of the surroundings, but I'm still not convinced it's FP material. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- There is a large area that is burned out that is distracting; less people, only one or two jumping, and maybe someone in the water...also need more detail[[[User:Judgesurreal777|Judgesurreal777]] 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)]]
Oppose Agree with above--Fir0002 www 09:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per nom. 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree with Dave.--Chili14^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a beautiful picture that accurately depicts a niche of Florida recreation AND nature.--Vox Causa 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]