Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake-effect snow
I was surprised that this wasn't already featured. I've become (nonvoluntarily) familiar with lake effect snow (my area usually gets hit the worst). Fits the criteria of striking/impressive/fascinating and adds qualitatively to the article Lake effect snow. - BRIAN0918 16:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 16:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm ambivalent about this one. It's a dramatic image, but it's very difficult to interpret (and thus I feel it currently fails the "add significantly" test, IMHO). I can't quite tell what is cloud, what is snow, which direction the wind is blowing, and where the lake is and isn't. Maybe a really good caption would explain, but I think it really needs either a parallel diagram or a diagram and annotation overlaid on it. -- John Fader 17:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Any of the streaks are lake-effect snow clouds, dumping snow on the region underneath. As can be seen by the direction of the streaks, the wind is blowing southeastward, combining with a northeastward wind as the streaks extend to the east. I've added this information to the image's caption at Lake effect snow.
- I think it's one of the better examples of adding significantly. The image is not supposed to explain the entire article, but to aid as an example as one reads through the article. -- BRIAN0918 17:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The Lake Effect is an interesting one, but in this case, a diagram is far superior to a photo in explaining the phenomenon. I spend a lot of time with satellite images, but even so this one is difficult to interpret. I cannot see this is appropriate for FP status.On reconsideration, support Denni☯ 17:50, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)- See Andrew's comments below. Another featured picture of the same sort is Image:Sunspot TRACE.jpg, which gives an excellent example of a sunspot and corresponding field lines, but doesn't have an informative overlay (eg direction of lines, highlighted lines, etc)
- Support. Gives a good picture of the phenomenon actually happening. A diagram would be nice in addition, but this picture clearly shows the snow and clouds appearing over the lake and being carried with it to be deposited downwind. I can't imagine a better photographic illustration of the idea. --Andrew 18:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Lommer | talk 01:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support TomStar81 06:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very dramatic view of the phenomenon! --Kitch 17:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It shows exactly why they call it "lake effect". -- Riffsyphon1024 06:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Support at last. The photo has grown on me, and it is deserving. I've always wondered if better captioning might have cast its candidacy in a better light (I think the penny debate, by contrast, was begun rather well). Images are, in many cases, about the words we bring to them.
- I love reading about how the lake-effect moisture, in the form of snow, can drop two feet of snow in downwind New York and Pennsylvania in just a matter of hours. This information still doesn't quite completely satisfy me. I was born in Pittsburgh; is this, my home town, ever affected by "lake effect"? I want to know. This image is the beginning of a good discussion (in the form of an article). Sandover 01:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you won't get much or any lake-effect snow all the way out in Pittsburgh. The difference in snowfall near Lake Erie and not too far south of Lake Erie is pretty drastic. In Cleveland during the Great Lakes Storm of 1913, about 2 feet of snow were dropped, causing drifts of around 6 feet in height. My city and county of birth, in the northeast corner of Ohio, are one of the worst hit of them all, and it's not uncommon to see the (side) roads filled with feet of snow. I remember a particularly bad day where I had to shovel the driveway pretty much continuously because it just kept "blizzarding" all day. -- BRIAN0918 01:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Promoted. +9/-0-- Solipsist 20:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
