Mammatus
Probably fits the criteria of beautiful/striking/fascinating, and adds qualitatively to the article Mammatus. - BRIAN0918 16:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 16:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good photo, very illustrative --- Chris 73 Talk 00:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose -Too blurry/muddled. Perfectly adequate for article, just not good enough for fpotd. From looking at the original on the NOAA site I suspect too liberal a use of the despeckle tool was used in effort to reduce the very severe graininess of the original scan.--Deglr6328 02:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That actually wasn't the source photo I used. I just copied the text from the original photo in the article (which was another adaptation of the same image), but I used a different source photo. I'll work on a redone version which isn't as liberal and uses a larger source photo. -- BRIAN0918 03:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK. good luck! That source photo is horribly grainy. --Deglr6328 17:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with the too blurry. Janderk 11:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely lacking in focus; if an image which can deliver the promise of the thumbnail can be found, it will have my wholehearted support. Denni☯ 00:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Support TomStar81 06:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Striking. Mgm|(talk) 08:21, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. No detail, seems extremely out of focus. - Bevo 15:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)