Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/EclipsingBinaryStar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Eclipsing binary star

Animation of two stars rotating around each other, with the plane of orbit in line with the viewer, so they eclipse each other. The line at the bottom displays the intensity of light viewed due to the eclipses.
Animation of two stars rotating around each other, with the plane of orbit in line with the viewer, so they eclipse each other. The line at the bottom displays the intensity of light viewed due to the eclipses.

Granted, this is a small image, but I think it does a very good job of illustrating the eclipses of two binary stars and the intensity of light due to that.

  • Nominate and support. - zafiroblue05 | Talk 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nice, but really needs to be bigger. If it were larger, I'd support it. --Golbez 20:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose although it's good stuff and I think you should move it to the head of Binary star in preference to the black hole accretion pic that's there right now. I can't see how a larger version would add anything other than file size, but I think losing the ecliptic plane in favour of an angular view which showed how the smaller star moves more than the larger one would be more interesting to the reader who hasn't read the article yet. Having read the article, I see that this image illustrates a specific effect: that binary systems whose ecliptic plane happens to be in our line of sight appear to pulse, but if I had to choose an image to illustrate a binary system for our FP collection I'd still prefer an angular view ~ Veledan • Talk 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, right idea; low resolution. Phoenix2 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Attractive and informative. Additional resolution wouldn't add anything to this picture, and keep in mind that it's already almost 1mb large at this size and last I heard Mediawiki can't handle making thumbnails of animated gifs. In my opinion an angular view wouldn't work as well and I find it clear from this picture that the small star moves much faster. Redquark 22:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is not FP stuff. Not impressive. -- P199 23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think animated things belong on the Main Page. --Keeleysam 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Not all featured pictures have to go on the Main Page. And would you object to all of the following already-featured, animated pictures? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly because of possible errors in physics: I think the large star should be red, the small blue (is it a white dwarf?), and the large star should move very little. This assuming the large star is more massive. --Janke | Talk 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe the observer isn't stationary :) The amount of motion is definitely off, although it's fine to exaggerate for the purposes of demonstration. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 02:24
    • Nope, it's correct. For stars on the main sequence, the more massive they are, the larger they are, the higher the internal pressure and temperature, and thus the higher the peak emission frequency according to Blackbody laws. Of course, stars in the later stages of their lives after the main sequence can be large and red (red giants) or small and blue (white dwarves), but this image is accurate for the main sequence, which describes the majority of stars. --Cyde↔Weys 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support IF the dimensions are at least twice what they are now. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 02:27
  • Support - nifty little animation explains more than (a huge amount of) words could. I like the smoothness of the animation and the graph below it, showing light/energy output. Good job! We need more of this type of image in Wikipedia!! Madman 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good image! There's no need for a larger size, it wouldn't add much more value. I don't like the exagerated movement, especially since the background remains stationary. --Pharaoh Hound 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a great animation, but it's way too small. It needs to be at least twice as large for me to support. bob rulz 01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would it be possible to slow the animation down just a bit? Other than that, I think it's a great animation and illustrates the concept very well. --Nebular110 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted 3 support,8 oppose Ravedave 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)