Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crepuscular rays over Plymouth Sound.jpg

File:Crepuscular rays over Plymouth Sound.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 13:15:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Crepuscular rays over Plymouth Sound.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crepuscular rays over Plymouth Sound.jpg

•  Info created by Nilfanion - uploaded by Nilfanion - nominated by Herby -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Info Crepuscular rays spreading out from the sun over Plymouth Sound, UK. Plymouth Breakwater, with its fort and lighthouse, and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship are also visible.
•  Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--Patriot8790 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral Really spectacular sky, uninteresting foreground (and the patch of grass somehow distracts me in full sreen). Therefore neutral.Nikopol (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The foreground is really distracting. —kallerna™ 16:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, either version (obviously)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Blaksems mooi Kleuske (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative crop

•  Info An alternative crop?
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I'm convinced by this version. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, either version (obviously)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Horizon is now quite low, but I think it´s still worth supporting. Beautiful. Nikopol (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Superb image. --Cayambe (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support this version is nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support this version. Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral tending towards oppose. This is a very nice image of crepuscular rays, but the competition is hard for FPs with this topic, and I do not quite think it is on par with more recent CR FPs.
  • Superior to the nominated image IMO:
    • File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg
    • File:Crepuscular rays with reflection in GGP.jpg
    • File:Back-scattering crepuscular rays panorama 1.jpg
    • File:Back-scattering crepuscular rays.jpg
  • On par with the nominated image IMO:
    • File:Indre Fure, Stadtlandet.jpg
    • File:Crepuscular rays over the steam from hot spring.jpg
  • Not as good as the nominated image (I will nominate these for delisting)
    • File:Sunset clouds and crepuscular rays over pacific edit.jpg
    • File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg

--Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I certainly agree the competition is getting hard on CR imagery. That said, I think that this picture (as well as File:Indre Fure, Stadtlandet.jpg and the 2 you have submitted for delisting) are quite different from the other images you mentioned. The CRs in Mila's images that are the result of tree shadows in mist/steam relatively close to the camera. On the other hand, the CRs in this picture are the result of cloud shadows in haze several miles from the camera (IMO the more frequent formation mechanism). Given the different origin of the rays, I wouldn't really say the existence of FPs of one type should exclude FPs of the other.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  I acknolwedge your point about different formation mechanism, so I have striked out my "tending to oppose" remark. I still maintain my slightly upstream neutral vote though. The reason being that I would rather see contributors trying to contribute with new subjects and display a little more ingenuity in what they nominate. I think we have many gaps in our FP gallery concerning subjects, espcially concerning topics related to people, history, science, society, culture, politics, etc. Topics were getting images, which the magical wow is perhaps a little more challenging than CRs . For me, the CR images, though nice and educational when not overdosed are starting to be a bit like the notorious sunset/sunrise images, which are all beautifull, but of questionable value. This is not meant as criticism of your photo (which is very nice). More a general comment regarding the distribution of FP topics with CRs FPs taken as an example. --Slaunger (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah fair enough. I don't think CRs are as bad as sunsets (yet), though I didn't really go out of my way to take this picture it just happened :) I wish we would get more FPs on "valuable" topics too, but some topics are always going to be easier than others (anyone say macro?) - in any case that's a discussion for somewhere other than here...--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Neutral I support the original version. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --.snoopy. 12:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

The chosen alternative is: File:Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg