Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Whole world - land and oceans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Whole world - land and oceans

Whole world - land and oceans
Enlarge
Whole world - land and oceans
Edit 1 Whole world - land and oceans - 2.45x bigger
Enlarge
Edit 1 Whole world - land and oceans - 2.45x bigger
Comparision of the Hawaiian Islands with edit 1(2.45x larger) to the left, and the original to the right. Click for full size.
Enlarge
Comparision of the Hawaiian Islands with edit 1(2.45x larger) to the left, and the original to the right. Click for full size.

Great image. I don't think i really need to say much.

  • Nominate and support. - Nnfolz 06:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice and a very useful image, an important contrbution to WP Bjrobinson 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Encyclopedic, high resolution, pleasing to the eye, sharp. This image meets every requirement from What is a featured picture?. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Pharaoh Hound. Comment: Any description should note that the image uses the Plate carrée projection. (I think) --Billpg 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. A fine example of a featured pic. howcheng {chat} 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support - edit 1 Wonderfull, encyclopedic, and neat, not a map but a photograph. HighInBC 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Me gusta! Viva La Vie Boheme
  • Oppose. All the landforms are surrounded by artefacts. --Oldak Quill 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The artifacts disappear when scaled down to any resonable resolution. A huge JPEG with artifacts is better than a small JPEG with no artifacts. I support. —Keenan Pepper 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The high resolution is excellent for this type of picture, and I agree with Billpg that the Plate carrée projection note should be included with it. --Tewy 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support wow Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I cannot vote at this time as I'm unable to download the large version. Anyone else having problems? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It took ages to download on my computer (with high-speed). But it loaded eventually. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support amazing resolution; I can almost see my house in this! (well... kind of...) smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well done, this is really a very fine map!!!! nice work Jam01 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I would strongly support a different format, as there is some coastal artefacting. With that aside, this is a wonderful picture, and I think its the largest I've seen on Wikipedia! Very well done - Jack (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, there seems to be something wrong with the Severnaya Zemlya Islands just off the north coast of Russia - Jack (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Could it be the normal distortion that comes along with the projection?Nnfolz 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    Possible, but then that would not explain the misterious black square coating the ocean around Enderby Land in Antarctica. While searching for a map for that article, I found Image:Antarctica satellite orthographic.jpg, which also has the black square. Is that really there, or is a a fault? - Jack (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's interesting, it could just be from a lack of information, or an area that changes a lot, if anyone wants my opinion (I really can't say why that's there). --Tewy 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Amazing. --Fir0002 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support unbelieveable. -- Samir धर्म 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's impossible to fault NASA's photographic sense. --Marumari 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - Darwinek 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support If this is not a Featured Picture, then what is a Featured Picture? This is an amazing photo made by NASA. It's just the perfect choice. Arad 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I notice this was scaled down for an 8meg limit from the original NASA tifs. I think the current limit is 20megs now right? I will see if I can make a new copy perhaps in png or a higher res, that is if my computer can even handle those huge tifs(640mb total). I am about to leave for Toronto so if I cannot do it today I won't be back for a week. HighInBC 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added a version that is about 2.45x bigger than the previous, reflecting the new limit of 20megs compared to the old of 8megs. HighInBC 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - I noticed in the RAW version that since it is a photograph you can see through the water in shallow areas. This create a fuzzy boarder that looks like jpg artifacts. In the larger version it looks less like jpg artifacts and more like shallow water(imo). HighInBC 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - Darn it, I can't download the larger version. Anyone else have the same problem? - Jack (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Browsers are not meant to deal with huge images like this, save the link and view it in a proper image viewing program, GIMP is a good free one. HighInBC 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Whole world - land and oceans_12000.jpg. I'll leave the link to the smaller version in case the big one is too big for anyone's computers. Raven4x4x 00:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)