Reason

The image shows an extremely powerful tropical cyclone with classic features. It shows a textbook example of a rapidly intensifying system with a pinhole eye (a pinhole eye being an eye less than 10 nautical miles in diameter).

Articles this image appears in

2009 Pacific hurricane season and Hurricane Jimena (2009)

Creator

HurricaneSpin (uploaded by) Image produced by NASA

• Support as nominator --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nah, seen that before. We already have features cyclones. What makes this one so special? --Dschwen 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WIAFP does not prohibit multiple featured pictures on marginally similar topics. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not really just marginally similar, it's basically the same as File:Cyclone_Gafilo.jpeg or File:Hurricane_Isabel_18_sept_2003_1555Z.jpg. Call me ignorant, but if you've seen one storm shot from space, you've seen them all. Also, big f'ing deal. NASA produces one of these for pretty much every storm. Should we batch nominate them all? --Dschwen 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All birds look similar to me. Should we demote all but one or two featured pictures on birds? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep in mind this picture is for the 2009 hurricane season, so the pictures you suggested couldn't be put into the 2009 season page. Also, per Juliancolton Nezzadar (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It meets all the critera for an FP and remember no two cyclones are the same.Jason Rees (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seen far better TC FP's. This isnt a great example. Please do ask if you want a slightly more technical reason, but most people tend not to like the cloud babble. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would actually like a more technical reason :) I don't mind the babble Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIAFP #3. MER-C 07:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed Oppose The storm is cropped, particularly the southern/western outflow. The storm itself is also rather ragged, with very broken banding. This is not a prime example of a tropical cyclone, also a further pulled back image would give more of a sense of scale, particularly it should have more of the Baja peninsular, preferably with the connection with mainland mexico further north. It is clear that the argument it not that there are similar images of tropical cyclones, but that there are better images of tropical cyclones. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And.. the image is no longer in use in the article. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great image of a great Tropical cyclone, and a good addition to all the wonderful FP's based on crteria. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 02:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A high quality illustration of Hurricane Jimena. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And no, it ain't gonna hit me. Durova³⁰⁶ 03:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to banding. Also per Dschwen, fails WIAFP #3. MER-C 07:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-While this is another tropical cyclone, it is one of the best examples of a pinhole eye. --Anhamirak 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support It's a nice picture, but as someone who has lived through hurricanes, I can never be enthusiastic about them, hence the weak support. He eh. Nezzadar (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. YOU try taking a photo from space, then you can comment on it being framed poorly. There just aren't that many alternitives. Nezzadar (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about Mars or another planet, then your argument would stand and if fact I would totally agree with you, as I have before. But it falls apart when we have all of these, and these are just the ones that have been categorised properly. It has a viewing width of 2,330 km and views the entire surface of the Earth every one to two days. It is an almost statistical certainty for a storm to be captured. I think we can be picky with what we can promote or not. There are a swathe of these images so please people, lets start applying better standards than Ooooo they're pretty clouds from space, that'll do. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Seddon. Unless we decide that each storm is sufficiently different than the other tropical storms that each one can have its own FP, so to say, we should really only choose the best of them (of which this is not one, per Seddon). NW (Talk) 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral A very nice photo (after all, GOES is a professional photographer :-D), but for FP I prefer that there be no ambiguity about what the cyclone is (to a non-expert). Here there is a lot of convection and convective debris all around the storm, especially over land, which takes the focus away from the cyclone itself. I like tropical cyclones with a nice moat around them, so it is clear what is the storm and what is not; we can't all be experts in hurricane structure, after all.

As for whether a separate storm is a separate subject as far as FP is concerned, I like the example used above. Two birds look similar: what is preventing them from having their own separate FPs though? We can't use a picture of a raven on the crow page (even if they look the same to the untrained eye) any more than we can use an image of Hurricane Katrina on the article for Hurricane Ike.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]