Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lightning strike jan 2007.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lightning Strike

Large lightning strike over Swifts Creek
Large lightning strike over Swifts Creek

Lightning strike over Swifts Creek in January 2007. Captured using an exposure of approx 30 seconds (it was on bulb). Quite spectacular IMO

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Quite spectacular--Benjamint [1] 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I should point out that the image does appear in the Lightning article. Spikebrennan 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support.Awesome Looking.Ashnjohn07 14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It is in the Lightening article now; I didn't bother to check who added it, but it is probably the most artistic image in the article, and I really like it. Zakolantern 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely gets a 'wow' from me, especially with the detail captured in the multiple leaders. --jjron 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Wow. Just wow. Smokizzy (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Yep, that's a pretty cool picture even for an intrinsically impressive subject. Perfect framing and exposure! --Dschwen 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. Well done. SingCal 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I happen to have looked at lightning a few days ago, and I much preferred the lead images at that time. [2] Yes, this image is very good, and very high resolution, but where there used to be an image of cloud-to-cloud lightning and an image of cloud-to-ground lightning, there are now three images of cloud-to-ground lightning! Yes, this image is far better than the image of cloud-to-cloud lightning, but this is an encyclopedia, and, to me, breadth of subject is more important than beauty of subject. Honestly, Fir's image is probably technically better than the current featured pic of lightning, but since I've seen lightning mostly in populated places (instead of attractively against hills), I'm used to seeing the smaller threads of lightning, and it's exciting to see the strike points, I personally like this one a lot better. In other words, I don't think this candidate fulfills criteria #5 - Adds value to the article. Enuja 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Suport, and comment to above: I actually feel the enc is higher in Fir's photo - even though I've watched scores of thunderstorms, I've never seen four simultaneous strikes! Who says we can't have two FPs of lightning? --Janke | Talk 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Simulataneous... ...well, within 30 seconds exposure time. --Dschwen 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course, we know that, but does the average reader? --Janke | Talk 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support even though the main bolt is overexposed (mwuhahaha, just kidding). Very well done! Cacophony 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was just about to strongly oppose based on blown-out highlights and underexposed shadows... --Dschwen 09:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --Mad Max 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This image actually seems more encyclopedic because it shows lighting in a non-urban setting because it shows what lightning naturally looks like. Plus, the quality of the image is excellent. <~KULSHRAX~> 02:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As above. While the lightning is overexposed, this allows a clearer view of all the forking going on, adding to the article in question by demonstrating the path of least resistance thing. Bigbearbooth 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support great image, per above. And much preferred over the current lightning FP. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Superb. I like both the current FP and this new one, though I agree this has higher enc value. ~ Veledan • Talk 16:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Lightning strike jan 2007.jpg MER-C 03:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)