Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fire02.jpg

Image:Fire02.jpg[edit]

Fire generated by a burning weed. No use of petrol

I think this is a good replacement for the existing FP photo I took with my old Kodak. Higher res and quality IMO. Of course if you feel there is space for two fire FP's I'd be happy with that too :-)

Support Self Nom --Fir0002 10:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. From the thumbnails, the second picture (existing FP) looks more dramatic because of the more saturated colors, but the detail at high res in the first one is great. Phils 12:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - "fire" is not a sufficient caption. Nice looking though. Broken S 22:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't realise we were voting on the caption as well. Put a bit more detail in it --Fir0002 23:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAFP says that pictures should be, "Be displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption." I think the picture looks nice and would suggest you take it to commons, but I see you have already done that. Broken S 14:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Ok, but something I like in the current one is that I can see where the ground is. In the proposed one, the fire doesn't have context. enochlau (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the existing FP better illustrates fire because it shows the need it has for a fuel, which I can't see in the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, simply not striking, like original FP better. Phoenix2 01:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quality is great, much better than the original FP. But the flames look too much out of context to significantly contribute to any article the other FP is contributing to. --Dschwen 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps it would be more suitable for the "flame" article --Fir0002 22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be great in the flame article. I just added it. --Dschwen 19:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider supporting? --Fir0002 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is now used in an article where it fits? That should be the case for every picture on wikipedia. Don't get me wrong the image quality is realy outstanding, but if you check the flame article you'll see that the other picture adds more to it in an encyclopedic way, explaining the different flame colors.--Dschwen 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I enjoy it. It is good way to show fire. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the existing FP is visually better. The new nomination feels "frozen", doesn't convey the dynamics of the flames as well. --Janke | Talk 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Very pyro... Spawn Man 03:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both - They look great--ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]