Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glaciers and Icebergs in high Arctic

Glaciers and Icebergs in high Arctic

Original - An aerial view of glaciers and icebergs at Cape York (Greenland)in High Arctic. At the image you could see the part of the icebergs, which are under the water. Typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water.

edit 1

Reason

A rare aerial view of the very remote region of High Arctic. The only image of the kind on Wikipedia, huge EV, good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Glacier; Iceberg;Cape York (Greenland)

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose terrible CA oh wait, my mistake. :) Support as per Commons FPC on this image. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Noise and motion blur. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That image is extremely rare, and was taken in a very harsh environment. Arctic is melting. Few years from now that image will become historic.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the image but can you tell me why we should promote this when we already have a very similar FP? --Muhammad(talk) 15:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not really similar. The image you pointing out to was taken from a ship. The nominated image was taken from a helicopter. Not only it provides a wider view of the area, but it also shows the parts of icebergs that are under the water. Many people do not realize that typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water. That's why the icebergs are so dangerous for navigation. It seems small and harmless above the water line, but most of the danger is hidden below.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have few images of the icebergs, but the nominated image is the only aerial view (if we do not take into account NASA images taken from the space) of the icebergs.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks overprocessed. --Dschwen 16:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. Added the edit. Now you sure could see the part below the water much better :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dschwen, you can find out more by looking at what I think is the actual original: File:Icebergs cape york 1.JPG. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. Attempted recovery of overexposed icebergs makes them look posterized and grainy. Quite a shame,but I guess the sight must have been to stunning to think of setting the exposure compensation. We don't have many users flying to the arctic (Slaunger?) so I won't oppose, but rather abstain. --Dschwen 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know Slaunger took some rather nice images of icebergs, but I do not recall aerial view. Do you? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh no, that was just the only one coming to my mind who had been there (so he probably flew to the arctic, but didn't fly around there ;-) ). --Dschwen 03:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Then, if we have agreed that my image is the only one image of the icebergs taken from the air, you might reconsider your "abstain" and support the image :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are many things we only have one image of. That's not a sufficient criterium for FP status. --Dschwen 03:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support either, prefer edit 1 (although I wish it was cropped a little less tightly on the sides). The oblique aerial view gives a very different perspective to the other FP. --Avenue (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Papa Lime Whiskey. Factsontheground (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)