Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tsunami aftermath in Pichilemu, Chile

Tsunami aftermath in Pichilemu, Chile

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 03:25:35 (UTC)

Reason: Because it very educational and illustrates very well its topic.
Articles in which this image appears: Pichilemu 2010 Chile earthquake
FP category for this image: History
Creator: Diego Grez, improved by ZooFari

Support as nominator --Diego Grez (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image quality isn't that great, and I find it hard to tell exactly what the earthquake/tsunami has actually done. It looks just like a normal unattractive littered beach to me. :) I know it's too much to ask for after the event, but I think to have really good EV, a before and after comparison would be necessary. Even an after and now photo would probably suffice, just to show what it normally looks like. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, what Diliff says is correct. Glancing at the image, it didn't occur to me tht this was the aftermath of a tsunami; it wasn't until I saw the title that I realised. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What am I missing here? As a source a link to a flickr image is given. That image is neither free nor available in the uplaoded resolution. Resolution is weak for a panoramic image and the image quality kills it completely. Unsharp and posterized all over the place. --Dschwen 12:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think what we're seeing here is a beach that probably would've looked nicer if the sand was dry and the sky was sunny, I think it just looks ugly because the sand is damp. It's pretty easy to see that something had to move those boats right next to the road and smash them up and cause such obvious, rapid erosion. What really surprises me is that the lampposts didn't get washed away. Those issues aside this isn't very sharp and it's got chromatic abberation. The photographer has nominated it, so he must mean for it to be free. --I'ḏ ♥One 13:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pictures like this illustrates tsunami destruction better. 2004 tsunami in Indonesia P. S. Burton (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the occassion to take the panorama was not perfect (there was a strong aftershock of the earthquake precisely in these moments), and my real camera was damaged by the earthquake (I took the panorama with my cellphone's camera). You can see other of my pictures of the damage in the same Flickr album, or in commons:Category:Images by Diego Grez, which contains them all. Cheers and thanks for the comments, Diego Grez (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case this is much better than I would expect from a cell camera. --I'ḏ ♥One 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that is the devastation a Tsunami can wrought? Eerily, impressive. Gut (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Burton. Gut (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - considering this was taken from a cell phone, it's certainly quite impressive. :) But I'd like a rather higher quality picture that illustrates the devastation of a tsunami more strikingly, sorry. Kindly, Clementina talk 08:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]