Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blizzard of 2006

Blizzard of 2006 [edit]

This is a picture of the North American blizzard of 2006 uploaded by Quasipalm. The picture is sharp and clear, and of a sufficient resolution. It is very informative an detailed. It is a beautiful and excellent image of the snow. It really draws attention to how powerful the storm was.

Nominate and support. - bob rulz 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded an auto-levelled, slightly sharpened version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 23:01
Comment: I don't know about "powerful"; this is a normal winter where I live. Now this is powerful :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 23:03
- Maybe not powerful, but it's certainly not a small storm. Either way, it's an awesome picture, imo. bob rulz 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2nd version -Ravedave 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both Images Low resolution, the image is just not up to the Featured Picture status. Alvinrune ^TALK 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support first version only. Neutrality^talk 03:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Just a snowed in street. Sure, it may be a seldom seen thing in this particular location (thus good for the article), but the image itself is not stunning. --Janke | Talk 06:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Common image. Very similar to what I can see right now if I look through my window. Glaurung 06:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we neighbors? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 07:32
Oppose, artefact in the snow on the ground. Doesn't properly show it's in North America. Could just as easily be a Swedish storm. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Image isn't that spectacular in my opinion and isn't of a very high resolution. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess people have different opinions on what a really cool picture is. Snow is typical, yes, but this picture particularly struck me as really cool. Oh well. bob rulz 15:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weakly) second pic. This might not be particularly exceptional for some, but for South east England 1" of snow is an event deserving celebration. Nice picture, and for Mgm, they aren't artefacts, that's a piece of snow falling past the camera lens. I don't really think it's that low resolution. What's deemed an adequate resolution - when the whole thing can't fit on the image description page? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just not all that stunning. Sorry. Staxringold 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's only snow. chowells 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about people who've never seen snow? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already have 2 good winter pictures. Circeus 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke, Glaurung, Chowells et al. The only unusual thing about this picture is where it was taken, and the picture itself doesn't show that in any way. It's just a picture of snow on a street, no different from the view from my window just now (see right). Now, if the picture had a guy running in the snow wearing shorts and a t-shirt, that might illustrate the unusual severity of the storm... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What could possibly show where it is? Take a picture of a bunch of snow with the Empire State Building in the background? What if this picture was just on the snow article? A picture of snow isn't striking, but for some reason this one caught my eye. *sigh* I guess it's just a matter of opinion. bob rulz 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is pretty, in the way fresh white snow often is. Maybe I'm just too used to it to appreciate it fully. But I still don't see this as being of feature picture quality: It's just not that eyecatching, and in my opinion a featured picture also ought to have some intrinsic encyclopedic merit besides merely looking nice. In this case, the image has encyclopedic value only as part of the article, not when taken out of context as it would be as a featured picture. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support version 2. Sharp, no artifact I am one of those people who have never really seen snow. If it snowed like that here the second ice age would be upon us.--Dakota ~ ° 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Not striking, could be anywhere, does not catch the eye in the least. Mstroeck 12:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could be any bit of snowy landscape. Nothing outstanding. Kessa Ligerro 18:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Version two, beautiful picture. --GorillazFanAdam 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - oppose all. unremarkable.--Deglr6328 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]