Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amundsen-scott-south pole station 2007
- Reason
- I think this is an excellent picture of the ceremonial South Pole with the new (and now completed) South Pole research station in the background. Witness United States Tax dollars at work in the harshest of environments. I think people will be enriched be viewing a vista that they are not likely to see themselves. Currently "tourist" flights to the South Pole cost about $40,000USD. [1]
- Articles this image appears in
- Amundsen-Scott_South_Pole_Station
- Creator
- U.S. Antarctic Program, National Science Foundation photo posted to WikiCommons by Azoreg
- Support as nominator FYI, This previous nomination of a different picture (by a different person) failed. --Azoreg (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom and for the place the image was taken.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support edit1 It is a shame that the flags and building are cut off - there should have been plenty of space to step backwards with nothing for a few thousand miles. If someone wants to reshoot we can delist and replace ;) I created an edit to fix the distortions, slight sharpen and crop for composition. Mfield (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I personally agree with you... I think stepping 40ft back or so would have made a much better picture... but alas I do not work in Antarctica, and this was the best photo I found of the finished new station among the various NSF photos. The station is now 2 stories tall and houses 150 people. It's impressively big for being in the middle of nowhere. Azoreg (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Doesn't seem to have the quality expected of an FP. Composition is a bit of quandary, building is cutoff, some flags are partially cutoff, and we can't see all twelve of them which would possibly be nice, even if we didn't get the whole building (given the flag issue, I actually wonder if this wouldn't look better cropped cleanly to just the middle four?). Also looks to have been overly compressed leading to a fair bit of artifacting. --jjron (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think it adequately illustrates the base. I've seen many photos of the station, and most show much much more than this (which is a shame - a good photo). Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose for comp. Fletcher (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support.--Avala (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)