Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rock formations in Joshua Tree National Park

Rock formations in Joshua Tree National Park

Reason: Great EV, high quality
Articles this image appears in: Joshua Tree National Park
Creator: Mbz1

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Few of my latest nominations went with no oppose, with no support and with no comments at all. With this one I would really like try to figure out what is going on. It might help me to safe my and yours time in the feature, and not nominate such images anymore. May I please ask you to tell me what is wrong with the nominated image
1. Too good to oppose,
2. Too bad to support,
3. Too boring to comment and/or to vote.
Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compared to one other image in the article, this one IMO has better EV. If you upload a compressed version, then I can vote as this one is too large for me. --Muhammad(talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Muhammad. It is very kind of you! I believe you are right about EV. This image shouws sphere and nice connection between other rocks. Here is the other version (the size is the same, but the quality is worse for you to be able to see without loosing the time) File:Giant Marbles in Joshua Tree National Park compressed.jpg or maybe you ment you wanted me to downsample the image rather than reduce the quality?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant a downsample. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spencer. I've overwritten my compressed image with down sampled one--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see any major technical issues with the image, colours look good. However, I sorta disagree with Muhammad. I recently visited Joshua Tree NP, and I think both images have good EV. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support That caption needs to be added to the article however, its unclear what you are looking at there. Someone needs to remove about half the images from the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, Noodle snacks. I added geology section to the article. I'd rather somebody else, but me removed some images from the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I further did some image movement and cleanup. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Muhammad(talk) 07:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets all the criteria. Very good EV. — Jake Wartenberg 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Not sold on EV. Are these unique to this park? Are they the major feature of the park? I get no sense of scale from the picture. Are they huge? Small? I'd consider supporting if the caption or article were improved to give a better sense of what we're looking at. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No scale? There are not just one, but two persons at the rocks to see the scale!--Mbz1 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the caption, may I please ask you, if you read the article I linked the caption to? I believe I did my best with the caption, but I am not a native speaker of English. I'm opened for suggestions, if you be so kind to advise me what else from this article should be included in the caption. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just visited the park about 2 months ago. After seeing it, I'd say the rocks are a major feature of the park (I have a similar picture, but the quality is crap). Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the people. Changing my vote to Weak Oppose. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Lovely image, superb lighting, excellent EV. The human figures add a helpful sense of scale. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with conditional support Speaking as a geologist, the caption is very poor. Here is a suggested version with grammar and text alterations to make it clearer and more accurate:

The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface. Groundwater is responsible for the weathering that created the spheres from rectangular blocks. You could read more about the rock formations here

If the above or similar change is made then this image recieves my support. Seddσn ^talk 05:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The caption was changed. Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Giant Marbles in Joshua Tree National Park.jpg --wadester 16 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]