Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mammoth Hot Springs Trees

Mammoth Hot Springs Trees[edit]

**Original** - Dead trees in the terraces of Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, US. These trees grew during inactivity of the mineral-rich springs, and were killed when calcium carbonate carried by spring water clogged the vascular systems of the trees. The same process also effectively preserves the trees by preventing decay.

Reason: Has been doing rather well at Commons, thought I'd give a try here. Meets all the criteria as far as I can tell.
Articles this image appears in: Geothermal areas of Yellowstone
Creator: Thegreenj

Support as nominator --Thegreenj 22:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture, well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It's highly encyclopedic and very nicely composed, but I really wish it was bigger; there is a lot of significant detail, especially at the base of the trees, that this picture only teases you with.--ragesoss (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sourcing is a bit unclear in the article. This one covers the first bit of the caption, but I'm not sure which one covers that about clogging their vascular system and preventing decay. Narayanese (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If only I had taken a picture of the sign that was by some of these trees... I'm afraid right now, it's unsourced, unless someone who can go there can get a picture or something as a source... I am looking for a source. Here says that the roots "cook", which doesn't exactly confirm what I've put. If you feel it best, the second part of the caption can be removed until a source is found. Thegreenj 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to leave this open, but I'm not going to have internet access for the next couple days, so it's unlikely that I'll be able to respond to any comments quickly. Thegreenj 03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons set forth by ragesoss smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason for oppose. The guidelines specify 1000 pixels, and this meets it, as well as being extremely detailed at that resolution. This is a concrete guideline, so it's not an aguable. Thegreenj 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 1000px minimum is just meant as a baseline filter to get rid of unreasonably small images, not a black-and-white test for adequacy of detail. Many images that meet the 1000px minimum are rejected on those grounds. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- it's a nice, representative photograph and I think the detail is fairly good. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very visually pleasing, makes you want to read the article. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. ^8th star 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any natural process which prevents decay on earth is encyclopedic. Image highlights the calcium(cause) and tree(effect) perfectly. --gppande «talk» 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mammothterracetrees.jpg MER-C 10:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]