Contents

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Red Sea sandstorm

Red Sea sandstorm[edit]

Reason

High quality and resolution, meets criteria
Also featured at the Turkish Wikipedia.

• Support as nominator --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think I saw this at commons. Interesting. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's probably because I nominated it both places at the same (general) time. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Worthwhile image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The density of images at dust storm is way too high. However, I prefer this one over most the others. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only used in the gallery at Dust storm. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this is used only in a gallery. The article's imagery needs to be cut down massively- we don't need a gallery to show multiple similar images. Further, I do not think I would be comfortable supporting if it was cut down now- I would rather see it sit in the article for a little while to demonstrate that editors do not generally prefer other images. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did such a cut down. I can't say that the images were organised in order of merit. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn Nelro2 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now that Noodle snacks has cleared out the article of its images. upstateNYer 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: GerardM (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Redsea sandstorm May13-2005.jpg —Maedin\^talk 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]