Support but it could be added to more pertinent articles such as
Volcanic ash,
Tarvurvur,
Stratovolcano and
Dune to increase the educational value? The only one article that has the article is very short in length, so even with the very nice image, the EV does not look high at this status.--
Caspian blue01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Regretful oppose When looked at this with a lower res and speaking as a geologist, it looked amazing, a truely fantastic image. But when you look at full res the technical quality is just way, way, way too low to support this as an fp. Sorry dude. Seddontalk|WikimediaUK21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Neutral Too interesting to oppose, but yes, blurry. Much of the loss of sharpness comes from the bright light and reflective surfaces, although the smoke is horribly out of focus. Nezzadar☎05:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Quite nice but significant technical problems, chiefly that large area of blown sky is unappealing at anything above thumbnail and going on the horizon it has a significant tilt. I would suggest there's more impressive images of this already
on Commons so wouldn't say that aesthetics or EV are enough to compensate. --
jjron (
talk)
06:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: I voted neutral on this, which should not disqualify me for COI reasons since neutral is essentially the same as commenting. If my assumption is incorrect, please contact me at my userpage.
Support but it could be added to more pertinent articles such as
Volcanic ash,
Tarvurvur,
Stratovolcano and
Dune to increase the educational value? The only one article that has the article is very short in length, so even with the very nice image, the EV does not look high at this status.--
Caspian blue01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Regretful oppose When looked at this with a lower res and speaking as a geologist, it looked amazing, a truely fantastic image. But when you look at full res the technical quality is just way, way, way too low to support this as an fp. Sorry dude. Seddontalk|WikimediaUK21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Neutral Too interesting to oppose, but yes, blurry. Much of the loss of sharpness comes from the bright light and reflective surfaces, although the smoke is horribly out of focus. Nezzadar☎05:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Quite nice but significant technical problems, chiefly that large area of blown sky is unappealing at anything above thumbnail and going on the horizon it has a significant tilt. I would suggest there's more impressive images of this already
on Commons so wouldn't say that aesthetics or EV are enough to compensate. --
jjron (
talk)
06:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Note: I voted neutral on this, which should not disqualify me for COI reasons since neutral is essentially the same as commenting. If my assumption is incorrect, please contact me at my userpage.