Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Point Lobos

Point Lobos[edit]

Reason: Great quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Point Lobos
Creator: Mbz1

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Neither images really give you much of a sense of what Point Lobos is. Not enough context. In fact, I'd find it difficult to figure out that both images are of the same subject. They seem very different. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For cry out loud, Diliff:) Of course they are different. They were taken few miles apart. Point Lobos is a State Park that is stretching for many, many miles. It is not a point that is a "point". It is just the name that was given to the place. As I explained in the caption Point Lobos was called the “greatest meeting of land and water in the world” , and it is what it is a shoreline with the coves and beaches, and rock formations --Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the size of the State Park, but I still think to be a FP, it needs a more expansive, representative view of the area. Perhaps a panoramic stitch showing about five times as much as the original image, horizontally. By the way, I clicked through the link to the Francis McComas article and it says he was a sci-fi editor, not a landscape artist... What makes his statement about this area notable? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the quote from the article itself. I know nothing about the man. What you're saying about the image is all but impossible to take. There are coves, divided by the hills. Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the article refers to the wrong Francis McComas. I found this with a quick google, which suggests that the artist was born in Tasmania, not Kansas. I'll de-link it from this page and the article page. Anyway, I understand what you're saying about the limitations of the landscape, but you could certainly have included a panoramic view stretching as far as the hills allowed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've done a good job under the circumstances. The original image even has some seals, but that's OK. Thank you for your vote and your comments. and for finding the error in the article--Mbz1 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree that a panorama would be needed here. Alt 2 would probably make a good starting point for a stitch if additional exposures from the same vantage point are available. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is panorama, and it is as good as it gets. I could not find any image on the subject on the NET, which shows much more in the one shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* They publish a *MAGAZINE* full of encyclopaedic images [1]. Maybe ask them to let us have one? ~_– Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they have the right resolution, but please do ask them, if you wish to.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You doubt this based on which information? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in contacting them.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding Alt 3, it's the best of the four in terms of enc value, but it's unfortunate that the beach was cut off at the far right (and bottom, to an extent). For that reason, I don't think the composition is quite up to par. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They're all nice, but not quite FPs to me. Alt 1 comes closest IMO, but the horizon is bowed. --Avenue (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]