Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flood comparison
Flood Comparison edit
Pretty dramatic difference. Sorry if the quality of the flood pic isn't that great as it is a scan of a none to carefully preserved 6x4
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: In flood-comparison photos, don't they usually compare before-flood to after-flood? This is comparing during-flood to long-after-flood; it doesn't seem as useful, but others may disagree. I still like this comparison though. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:23
- Oppose Flood picture is fuzzy (as you say), right image has a severely manipulated sky, causing haloes around the trees. Also, not very encyclopedic - before/after would have been better. --Janke | Talk 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually the sky has not been manipulated. The second image is actually a HDR, which may make it look a little "fake". But it was the only way to capture the scene, without HDR it would have been impossible not to have burnt out areas or deep blacks. --Fir0002 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose they should be from closer times to give a better representation of the difference Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like the longer time difference because it shows the amount of flora which has grown after the area was flattened by the floods. You can see that grove of medium size bushes was not there at all during the flood. --Fir0002 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't actually get what it's trying to say. "One day there was lots of water. 8 years later, the water had gone away"? It's fantastic that you found the exact same POV, but there's nothing particularly surprising or unusual about what's happened in 8 years. Immediately after a bushfire then 8 years later would be more interesting, or as mentioned, immediately before and after a flood. And more concretely, this image really brings very little to flood. You really couldn't say "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." Stevage 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I don't know what these guys are talking about... They show the moment of destruction and how nature rebounds. The image that would be useless would be the flood and then the ground there destroyed. The only thing I would say is it would be nice if you could work it into the Creek article (potentially with an expansion about the flood). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I just don't see any "destruction" to speak of. There are some shrubs in the photo to the right, but you can't tell if there were any shrubs before the flood or not - all we know is that during the flood, there weren't any. Other than that, it's not particularly rare for an area to survive a flood with minimal damage, even after being buried under several metres of water for a couple of days. I'm seriously looking and I just don't see "destruction", but if anyone can point it out....Stevage 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. (edit confl.) Not a very good composition. Doesn't show much except half of two trees and some grass in the background. If this were a broader landscape it would be better. — Vildricianus 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. 8 years is just too big of a gap. say1988 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Blah blah blah this and that, the picture might not be the best but still beats most other featured pics, plus it forces people to think in the way other pics do not. Kokot.kokotisko 10:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Maybe it's not the most technically astounding photograph, but the concept is a unique feature that all other featured articles just don't have. This image shows time. The way the trees in the two photographs match up almost exactly even after eight years is quite nifty. --Cyde↔Weys 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)