Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Earth-Moon.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Earth-Moon.png

Earth and Moon to scale. Line below Earth represents distance of Earth's centre from the system barycentre. Line below the Moon represents perigee and apogee with the moon at the semi‐major axis position.

Edit 1 - both lines removed and image cropped, but still to scale

Edit 2 - Original image with thickened white lines.

Edit 3 - Higher brightness, thickened colored lines, less tight cropping.

Edit 2 shown at default thumb scale.

Shows the relative distance between the Earth and Moon to scale. Most pictures of the solar system (understandably) show a vastly reduced relative distance. This picture shows how much empty space there really is between us and our nearest neighbour.

Appears in The Moon's orbit. This picture wonderfully (IMO) illustrates the concept.

• Nominate and support (Orig or Edit3). - Billpg 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support (Edit 1). I prefer it with the moon's line, as it shows how much the moon's distance changes, but even without the lines, its still good. --Billpg 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support (Edit 2). Edit 3's lines look better IMO. --Billpg 12:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 - While the white lines are explained in the image talk page, on the image itself it is confusing. I would support a version of this without the lines. I like it, alot of blank space, but that is accurate. HighInBC 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, per HighInBC. Also, the white line below the moon forces the image to be wider than it needs to be - Jack (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 - Jack (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Copied description of white lines from Image page. I'll have a go at cropping the white lines later. (If anyone else wants to do it, please do.) --Billpg 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done - Jack (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support edit 1 modified version. Excellent illustration of the subject. The lines in the original, and in edits 2 and 3 require too much explanation. Edit 3 is way too bright. Mikeo 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. A sharp, dramatic depiction of the distance. Be sure to include that that is the mean distance wherever the picture is shown. --Tewy 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support original version. Give a good comprehension --Luc Viatour 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3, Edit 2 or original. White line brings interesting information and is quite self-explanatory, so there is no need to add text on the picture. However, I think the image would benefit from a thicker white line, which can be seen on reduced images. I had to see the image full-size to notice the line. Glaurung 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Submitted as Edit 2 for your consideration. --Billpg 08:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support original version or edit 2 I think the white lines are necessary since the image importance is because it's precise and if you don't put the lines, then why do you bother putting such a big empty space between earth and moon? The original or edit 2 are best ones. And I love it even more since Iran is in the centre of the image. hehe. Arad 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I realize the lines are pretty informative, but I think they're a little distracting as far as the aesthetics of the image go. Anyone else agree? For instance, the thickness of the lines on edit 2 seem a little over the top. And is it really necessary to see the lines on "reduced images", as Glaurung said? --Tewy 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the line was visible at least on its image page (which is not the case for the original nomination). There is no need, however, to have the line visible on the default thumbnail size. Glaurung 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support original only - I agree the lines are a distraction. Kaldari 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support original or edit 2. I prefer edit 2 slightly.--ragesoss 05:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support original, oppose all edits. The original is an ok illustration I like how instructive it is vs. just describing the distance verbally. The edits all just step it down though. --Dschwen 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support original Reywas92 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. great pic! Jawed 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps my point is somewhat OT, but if the image shows relative sizes and the distance of Earth and Moon correctly, perhaps it should show also their relative brightnesses. Earth's surface is as much as three times as bright as Moon's (hard to believe at the full moon). Note that Moon in the last image is far too bright relative to Earth. But probably Earth would be too bright and Moon too dark making the image hard to view. Maybe another image is better (with other Solar system bodies included to give an idea how dark Moon actually is).--JyriL ^talk 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original only. Interesting image, although I find the cropping on the LHS of the earth too tight --Fir0002 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 Jesse 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, no preference for edit number, although I would like to see the vertical version as featured pic (which is on the Moon article). --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nominator's comment. Personally, I prefer the horizontal version, but I'd be happy to throw this version in as Edit 4, but it seems rather late in the day for this new one to get a fair hearing. I suppose we could abandon this discussion and re-nominate, but I'd like to get opinions from those who have been doing FP discussion for aeons on the best course to take. (This is my first FP nom.) --Billpg 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This could never be featured on the main page or in any portal becuase of it's Wack proportions. Tobyk777 06:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Promoted. Image:Earth-Moon.png This one seems to be the most popular. howcheng {chat} 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)