Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2020 at 04:00:34 (UTC)
Reason
This is a great picture of the
Utah monolith - high resolution, good colors, and contributes well to the article - you really need to see it to understand it.
Support either as nominator - the alt is good too
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs) 17:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support either Given its removal, kind of vital to understanding, and not readily replaceable. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 06:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Oppose. This currently fails the 7-day waiting period in
WP:WIAFP. Also it has a fair amount of visible noise. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Oppose – This topic has been globally sensationalized, with all sorts of weird speculation. We shouldn't reinforce the hype by promo'ing it on the Main Page of Wikipedia. –
Sca (
talk) 15:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Sca: I don't see how that makes it unworthy of an article/FP, though. If we want to be the sun of all knowledge, some subjects may be a little silly, but we should still encourage good images.Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 19:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support either, prefer alt - it's a little grainy, but it's well above the resolution requirement, attractive, impressively swift photo-gathering and now irreplaceable.
TSP (
talk) 19:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
There's a new one now in
California. Figgers. Yawn. –
Sca (
talk) 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Not used in the article anymore --
Andrei (
talk) 13:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
It's been replaced with a tweaked version - I've added it as an alt.
TSP (
talk) 17:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Is that reflective of lighting at the time?because,if not, we must oppose. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 20:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Now I'm wondering whether the original shadowed corners were from lighting on the scene or from burning the photo after, and whether the updates mostly consisted of undoing all that burning. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
You're probably right. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 19:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. The suggestion
here that this is all just a viral marketing campaign bears watching. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Not sure it matters to notability, though. As long as this isn't a paid editing thing. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 19:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Somehow, the photo makes the object look smaller than it really was. Does anyone else get that impression, or just me?
XOR'easter (
talk) 00:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2020 at 04:00:34 (UTC)
Reason
This is a great picture of the
Utah monolith - high resolution, good colors, and contributes well to the article - you really need to see it to understand it.
Support either as nominator - the alt is good too
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs) 17:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support either Given its removal, kind of vital to understanding, and not readily replaceable. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 06:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Oppose. This currently fails the 7-day waiting period in
WP:WIAFP. Also it has a fair amount of visible noise. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Oppose – This topic has been globally sensationalized, with all sorts of weird speculation. We shouldn't reinforce the hype by promo'ing it on the Main Page of Wikipedia. –
Sca (
talk) 15:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Sca: I don't see how that makes it unworthy of an article/FP, though. If we want to be the sun of all knowledge, some subjects may be a little silly, but we should still encourage good images.Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 19:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support either, prefer alt - it's a little grainy, but it's well above the resolution requirement, attractive, impressively swift photo-gathering and now irreplaceable.
TSP (
talk) 19:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)reply
There's a new one now in
California. Figgers. Yawn. –
Sca (
talk) 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Not used in the article anymore --
Andrei (
talk) 13:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
It's been replaced with a tweaked version - I've added it as an alt.
TSP (
talk) 17:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Is that reflective of lighting at the time?because,if not, we must oppose. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 20:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Now I'm wondering whether the original shadowed corners were from lighting on the scene or from burning the photo after, and whether the updates mostly consisted of undoing all that burning. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
You're probably right. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 19:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. The suggestion
here that this is all just a viral marketing campaign bears watching. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Not sure it matters to notability, though. As long as this isn't a paid editing thing. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 19:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Somehow, the photo makes the object look smaller than it really was. Does anyone else get that impression, or just me?
XOR'easter (
talk) 00:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply