Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Epsilon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hurricane Epsilon

Admittedly, the image is somewhat similar to the image of Cyclone Catarina that is currently featured, but this image is larger, and, in my opinion, much higher quality. It appears at Hurricane Epsilon (2005), 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Tropical cyclone prediction model (due to repeated failures to accurately predict Epsilon's behavior) and Tropical cyclone. The image is from NASA and thus in the public domain.

• Nominate and support. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 00:32 UTC
• Comment - Can we do something about the brightness? This photo could definitely look a bit nicer. --Cyde↔Weys 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have photo editing skills; if someone else could do something, it would be nice. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 17:07 UTC
• Oppose. I'm a bit torn on this. Yes, it's a great picture, but ultimately we could keep promoting satellite pics of storms endlessly just because they're so fascinating and we can't take them. There are already some as FPs. I think there will be better ones than this in future, and ultimately Hurricane Epsilon itself was not that significant. I'm also not particularly taken with the colours in either version, the original is drab and the edit to me looks unnatural. So sorry, overall I have to oppose. Note that edited version is three times the file size of original at same dimensions - unnecessary. --jjron 11:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If you read the intro, you'll see that there is only one comparable tropical cyclone image featured (Image:Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG), which is clearly inferior to this one. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 17:07 UTC
• Oppose - just not interesting enough in my opinion for a FP. -- P199 21:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A photo that was quite similar (though more interesting) was voted on very recently. --Pharaoh Hound 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Oh... why not! Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support brightened version. The colors are similar enough to Catarina's for it to be believable. I just wanted to add that I don't think it is a satellite image. I think I remember a caption that said it was from a regular camera aboard the space station. They weren't making a routine pass over the location. They were simply fortunate to have such a good view of the storm while it was still well-organized. Good kitty 06:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the distinction. By all definitions of the word a space station is a satellite just as much as an orbiting telescope is. Any way you look at it it's still a picture taken from space ... whether it was taken by a handheld camera or by a "satellite" seems irrelevant, the result is the same. --Cyde↔Weys 06:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that the NASA images we're familiar with on Wikipedia were false color and composites of land features, clouds, etc taken from multiple angles. The land forms are always outlined. This is why they are very different from straight photographs. Good kitty 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  A "satellite photo" would generally be looking straight down, and as mentioned, is a composite. The term implies that it was taken automatically too. I don't think we would call an astronaut orbiting the earth taking a photo a "satellite" photo as it is taken by hand etc. Anyway thanks for pointing that out, I'd sort of overlooked this fact. Stevage 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, according to the criteria: 1) For a NASA photo, it's not the best. 2) Easily high enough resolution. 3) Not Wikipedia's best work, and certainly doesn't make us unique - there are probably lots of galleries of better satellite images 4) Yep, free licence 5) The other photo at Hurricane Epsilon (2005) is more descriptive. Land features would help a lot with visualising scale - it's quite close cropped 6) I hope so 7) Yep. Summary: It's a nice photo, but it's not special. Oppose Stevage 07:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not possible to include land features as the storm never came within 1000 miles of land. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 @ 21:22 UTC
• Oppose far too similar to existing one. -Ravedave 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Have you guys forgotten about Image:Cyclone Gafilo.jpg which got featured about two weeks ago? It's heaps better IMO --Fir0002 www 09:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing sets it apart, it looks very flat. --Golbez 15:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ordinary. enochlau (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Mikeo 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)