Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cyclone Ingrid

Cyclone Ingrid[edit]

Reason: The image shows a matured and powerful Category 5 cyclone nearing Far North Queensland. It clearly features several of the classic cyclone structures; round, clear eye, well developed feeder bands, symmetrical structure.
Articles this image appears in: Cyclone Ingrid, World weather in 2005, List of cyclones in Western Australia, 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season
Creator: NASA, uploaded by Good kitty

Support as nominator --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tearing especially visible on the right could be better, but at 250m resolution it's difficult not to get some strange effects with moving winds (this is a ~2 minute exposure, with the top being exposed at the start and the bottom at the end). Time3000 (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image clearly describes the beauty of tropical cyclones, and is high resolution, and is one of Wikipedia's best work. Darren 23 (Contribs) 13:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me Jason Rees (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can users following this link please ensure you are familiar with the criteria and you have checked similar existing FPs before voting. Thanks. --jjron (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything to suggest such users haven't voted according to the criterion? Additionally, how are existing FPs relevant? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard warning - canvassing in any form is discouraged at FPC, and non-regulars who find their way here following such a link often don't check the criteria. But FWIW a reason such as "Looks good to me" gives you little ground to suggest that the user, especially a user new to FPC, has checked the criteria, regardless of whether they have or not; we simply can't tell with the information given. Existing FPs allow you to assess what is typically accepted in this area, again, especially for those who may be unfamiliar with the process - this may in fact be better than some of the existing ones, but I haven't looked closely. Anything else you'd like to challenge me on? --jjron (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks for that explanation. And no, I wasn't challenging you; I apologize if it seemed that way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Sounded a bit that way when I first read it, I spose just that it was two direct questions re my comment, but I thought later that you were probably just clarifying. --jjron (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My Support was based on the FP critera. Jason Rees (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (sorry!). It doesn't look like that great of a tropical cyclone image, and it seems too bright. IDK, it seems like other tropical cyclone images say a lot more. Isabel, for example, has a lot more color, and its image is a very significant moment, namely its landfall. It also doesn't have nearly the striking qualities of Felix's ISS image. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The color issue is mainly just location. Clouds are white so that really wont change in any image so it depends on the amount of land shown in the image. As for the comparison to Felix, you're comparing to different types of images, one was from a camera on the ISS, the other was from a satellite so they're obviously going to be significantly different. Lastly, the brightness is probably because of the sun reflecting off the highest cloud tops. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the color being in the original image, but I was comparing to the others to show more striking TC FP's, and I don't happen to think it's one of Wikipedia's best work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've now stated below, comparing to other FP's doesn't make much sense. It really isn't which image is cooler and only ones cooler than that can be promoted, it's does the image meet the qualifications for Featured Picture and does it have something that makes it stand out a bit or is it very helpful in portraying something. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does make sense comparing, with something as generic as a tropical cyclone. There are hundreds of them every year, and I don't think this one stands out that much. You can't tell where it is, and I just don't get any sense of awe when I look at it. That's it - I just don't think it's one of Wikipedia's best work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Gafilo doesn't give sense of where it is as there is little land shown in that image. Knowing basic geography, specifically of continents, and you should get a sense of where it is. As for not having the "awe", that's a person by person opinion, I've asked several friends and members of my family which one (Ingrid or Gafilo) they liked more and Ingrid was more popular. I asked my dad why he liked Ingrid more and he said "it looks more impressive because it is more symmetric and doesn't take up the entire picture, giving a full perspective of the storm". But, if you want to standby your oppose based on your opinion of the image and not against the qualifiers, that's your call. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm going to stick with my oppose, on my opinion that it's not one of Wikipedia's best work. FWIW, I really don't think you can know where it is from basic geography. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to instantly identify its location. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you do already know the storm. I also found some other concerns. According to its image description in the file, it was not a Category 5 cyclone at the time, despite your description. Additionally, the image description says the cyclone was at its peak at the time, which is also not true, since the Global Best Track confirms that it didn't reach peak intensity until several days later. So, in summary, I'll ask the nominator for one last comment - why is this image, in particular, so important? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the image description, the Category 5 was the Australian Scale, otherwise I would have put SSHS. You are correct about the intensity, it was at its initial peak when this image was taken but still a Cat:5 on the Aus scale. As for it being important, how can you say it isn't important? It shows a very well-developed cyclone, featuring a clear eye, symmetrical structure, good outflow and is overall a very striking image. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more quibbling on the peak intensity, but the image page doesn't say what time the peak was, so it could've been during a 24 hour period on that day. I say that the image isn't important, because it's a fairly typical tropical cyclone. Sure, it's nice and all, but there are multiple storms that look like that every year. If the image was it while at landfall, or its actual peak intensity, the image would mean a little more, but I don't see the amazing features for a tropical cyclone over water, approaching land. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I added the time to the caption and checked the Best track. The image almost matches up perfectly with it's initial peak, within 2 hours of reaching it. As for many storms looking like that each year, I beg to differ. Storms don't get that kind of structure so easily and get their image taken by the MODIS satellite so perfectly and what "amazing features" are missing? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, and where did you get the time from? The source doesn't say the exact time. And as for storms every year doing the same thing - Dennis, Dennis 2, Emily, Rita, Longwang, and Olaf were all in the same year, IMO about as impressive as Ingrid. I'm just saying, I don't see much unique about this image, as opposed to others from that same year. I'll say it again, and I don't think I'll change my mind, I just don't think it is that special of an image. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any reason this should be more notable than Gafilo? We have an FP of that storm which is much more dramatic, I'm just not sure this is either as impressive or as important an image or event. Also, are you sure this belongs in a list of Western Australian cyclones? --mikaul^talk 09:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the other images play into certain images being featured quality. I personally think it really doesn't matter what images have already been featured and that the images should be matched up against the qualifiers and not what's already passed. As for being in the list of WA storms, Cyclone Ingrid made seven landfalls across northern Australia, impacting Queensland, Northern Territory, and Western Australia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that Western Australia ;o) I forgot it made up practically half the continent. I guess what I'm getting at is the regular appearance of 250m-res MODIS images of hurricanes and cyclones here at FPC. Some of them are awesome – ok, ALL of them are awesome, just some moreso than others. As there are 200 of them at commons [1] I'd suggest only the most notable should be featured. The question was posed in good faith. --mikaul^talk 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save the two that are already featured, I only see three more that are worthy of FPC, this one, Gonu and Daniel '06. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on principle - is a NASA satellite photo "Wikipedia's best work"? No. Stevage 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand upon your point please? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be snippy, but I do believe that opposing because it's an image from NASA is within the realm of WP:POV. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could apply the "Wikipedia's best work" to anything. Wikipedia is not a person. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this on the talk page before - I personally don't see value in featuring mass-produced works from external organisations such as NASA or the US military. They have collections of thousands if not millions of images that would be "featurable". [@Cyclonebiskit, I think you're off the mark with claiming "POV" here. NPOV is the principle that article content must be balanced. It's not applicable to talk pages, wikiprojects etc etc etc.] Stevage 08:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's your opinion that there are thousands of "featurable" images made by NASA though there really aren't that many of Tropical cyclones. As for trying to get around opposing per it not being "wikipedias best work" I would consider that in the realm of POV despite the page for that not specifying it begin applicable for this type of page. It's more or less a guideline to follow in general not just what it said in the description of it. As I see it, you're opposing this image based on your own view rather than against the FP standards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Noodle snacks (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the guide borders unnatural and unattractive, especially since it makes the image look randomly scribbled. They are useful alright, but not a good idea for an image that size. IMO borders should only be added (and thicker) to low res pics to increase EV, but not for FP promotion. A better idea for location identification would be adding a locator map in one of the corners... Zoo Fari 01:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Sorry for my lack of understanding but could you please explain what you mean by all this? I'm especially confused about it being "randomly scribbled". Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you (probably everyone else) aren't aware of the borders that are placed along the shoreline of every island? Zoo Fari 01:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's what you meant. There's nothing I can do about that since I didn't create the image. IMO, since we can't remove them, it's actually better to have them be as thin as they are so that when it's viewed in the "preview" format, they don't show since I don't think most people look as closely at an image as in an FPC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Good image, but it´s not very illustrative. A top view of a cyclone is very expected and often used, I don´t think this one is one of the best photos on wikipedia. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__Ξ_} . -- 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just removed the photo from List of cyclones in Western Australia as it clearly wasn't near WA at the time the photo was taken. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted I'm not promoting this image, which has received 6S/4O; Stevage's oppose is taken with a grain of salt, considering that the precedent has been set and these types of photos are common for FP promotions (I see it as like saying we can't have images by Mathew Brady because he wasn't a Wikipedian). That said, the vote count would go 6/3. While that typically passes, after reading the discussion here, I'm not convinced of the relative importance of this specific cyclone at this specific time, based on the nomination and arguments for. Supports for this image include arguments of "striking beauty" and "high EV". While these may be the case, you do indeed have a library of almost 800 similar images, all of which meet the criteria of those support statements. Hurricanehink asks, at 22:43, 24 June 2009, "why is this image, in particular, so important?" This is precisely what I thought when going through this discussion. The answer ("how can you say it isn't important? It shows a very well-developed cyclone, featuring a clear eye, symmetrical structure, good outflow and is overall a very striking image") describes at least 100 of the images in the library and is not specific enough to warrant FP promotion, specifically regarding criterium 3 (bullet 1). If this were promoted, why not promote all the others in that library? I would suggest scanning the library and coming back with another, and writing a very specific nomination including its location, its wind speed, its category, and why it is notable (Is it larger than most? Is it faster than most? Did it cause a significantly notable amount of damage? Is the image of higher technical quality than most? Is it in a location that doesn't typically experience cyclones or cyclones of this magnitude?) The more specific, the better and the more persuasive one is in trying to promote an image. Not trying to sound mean or to put anyone down, but I think we can do better. Any issues with this closure → my talk page, please. --wadester 16 06:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]