Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Terrestrial planets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Terrestrial planet size comparisons

The four terrestrial planets of our solar system, from left to right: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars

Edit 1 tripled horizontal resolution, and superimposed over the old globes the images Image:Reprocessed Mariner 10 image of Mercury.jpg Image:Venus globe.jpg Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg Image:Mars Valles Marineris.jpeg

Reason: Shows the terrestrial planets perfectly. Fulfils all of the FPC criteria, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be promoted, though perhaps it could be a bit larger...
Articles this image appears in: Terrestrial planet / Planet / Solar System / Mercury (planet) / Earth / Venus / Mars
Creator: User:Brian0918
Nominator: Jack · talk

Support either — Jack · talk · 12:03, Wednesday, 14 February 2007
- Introduce edit 1 - much larger resolution image, but worryingly isn't that much larger in file size. Worried it was murdered when converted to jpg from bitmap. Still have the bmp version, if anyone knows how to compress losslessly? Jack · talk · 13:18, Wednesday, 14 February 2007
Comment the earth comes out much lighter after the edit. I prefer the darker version in the pre-edit. - Francis Tyers · 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- As do Mars and Venus...but Mercury is darker somehow. I prefer the dark versions.--HereToHelp 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Blame the clouds. As far as I know, that's a true colour light photograph of how the earth looks from space. Mercury is doctored, though, and Venus is even a radar photo! (only to make it actually look interesting, rather than cloudy) Jack · talk · 07:13, Thursday, 15 February 2007
Conditional support edit 1 only. Before I'll support, Mars badly needs antialiasing. Also why is there a bite taken out of the Mars southern hemisphere? I don't mind Venus's bite because I guess there's no information about that area and it's filled in with yellow, but there's not actually a huge chunk missing from Mars as implied by the Mars picture. Also about the color, the darker earth looks better but the darker Mercury and Venus don't really matter; it's probably false color for venus anyway (it looks topographical, which would be impossible unless imaging with radar, which is insensitive to color). --⁪froth^T 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - It is misleading to have this layout. The planets should be placed in order of orbital radius. —Dgies^t c 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - They are placed in order of orbital radius. Uberlemur 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Oh now I feel dumb. I didn't look that closely and just judged on the very red color of Venus. —Dgies^t c 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Lol, no problem. We all make mistakes... So do you support now? Jack · talk · 07:15, Thursday, 15 February 2007
Comment is there a better image of earth anywhere? At the higher resolution, earth doesn't look as sharp when compared to the other 3 images used.-Andrew c 06:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Self-support either, although it would be nice to get a higher res Earth photo to replace this one (sorry, I threw the image together in a couple minutes and wasn't expecting any sort of FPC). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-02-15 21:45Z
Weak support original, oppose edit 1 - Original has inadequate resolution, edit 1 has nasty aliasing on Venus and Mars. —Dgies^t c 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Nice idea, but needs much more work to be considered FP. Compare the recent moon picture. ~ trialsanderrors 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)