Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:WMAP 2008.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WMAP image of the Cosmic Microwave Background

Original - The Cosmic Microwave Background as seen by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe after 5 years of observations. Projected from full-sky using the Mollweide projection.

Reason

Meets all the criteria. It's the best baby picture we have of the universe.

Articles this image appears in

Lots due to its use in two templates; see the image page for a complete list. Main ones are Cosmic microwave background radiation and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

Creator

NASA / the WMAP Science Team

• Support as nominator Mike Peel (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support (with reservation) — It is an exelent image but png. I will be sitisfied if it is converted to jpeg.. Png works.Sumanch (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Query: What's wrong with it being png? Mike Peel (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Informative but visually unimpressive. No wow that I see. (Maybe I'm just a Philistine.) Mangostar (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Searching online could find no better image of this subject at this time so it's unique, of high quality and adds to the article(s) it appears in. Regarding the use of PNG format, I too am puzzled. PNG is as good or better than JPEG depending on compressing settings. Furthermore, PNG has allowed the removal of a set background, increasing the versitility of this image. Other versions of this image available online had a solid white or solid black background. In any case, what is shown is the subject and the background is irrelevent. Capital photographer (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support de Bivort 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - A picture is worth more than 1000 words? Not in this case, I'm afraid. Though it represents an important scientific achievement, the picture is unimpressive and does'nt cause a feeling of awe, like this other nomination. Or maybe the image is not beautiful enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't recall "cause a feeling of awe" being one of the FP criteria. Yes, there's no denying the nebula image is a stunning work but this graphic is as unique and informative for it's subject. Capital photographer (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that this picture is a pale image of the work done in mapping the cosmic microwave background radiation and of the reality it represents. I don't think it makes us really interested in reading the article, as it shows very little meaningful information to the majority of the casual readers. I'm a macro physicist myself (well, I used to be...) and the only thing I can see is some random distribution of the temperature in space. On the contrary, reading the article may make us interested in seeing the picture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support For me, as a physicist, this image of the microwave background radiation is impressive and has very high EV. The amount of work which has gone into this image is enourmous, from designing the instrument, building it, launching it, accumulating the data and subsequent data analysis. It tells us a lot about the homogeneity of the universe as well as the first signs of anisotropy in the early universe perhaps the seeds for the first galaxies to form. The png format is only natural for this image as it allows for a transparent background and hinders any image artifacts. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support After some thoughts, I have changed to weak support. The reason is, that for me, an FP should preferably be self-explanatory. This image is only self-explanatory for those who have some knowledge of the subject or who reads the article quite thoroughly. I do not have any good ideas how it could be made more self-explanatory, which is why I still support it. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Not as pretty as a nebulae, but a lot more important and a much more difficult technical achievement. Matt Deres (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I acknowledge what Alvesgaspar is saying, but I think this is the best possible image of its subject matter. Caption could use work, though: perhaps it could explain in brief what the different colors represent, and the significance of the red parts being bunched together. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per above. By the way, I've uploaded an optimized version so the filesize is now about 60% of the original. Time3000 (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - find a version of this picture that doesn't use unattractive primary colors in the scale. Cambrasa confab 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Read the article and you'll understand... this isn't art, it's science. The colours are those of the original data and the colours are not just for decoration, they indicate temperature like those weather charts you see which show temperatures. Replace the colours and the image is meaningless. The colours are an integral part of the image, replace or remove them and the image is made useless. P.S. There is quite a bit of yellow in the image... yellow is made from Green and Blue and is therefore not a primary colour!Capital photographer (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the colour of the original photons is up in the radio frequencies, not in the optical, so is not something visible to the human eye. The colours you see in this image are those picked by NASA to display the image; while it could be recoloured, this is by far the most popular colour scheme for the image at present, hence the most recognizable, and hence this is the colour scheme that the image here should use. Mike Peel (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify my original comment, the colours of the original image released by NASA based on the original data from NASA. In other words, not just art but what NASA feels is most illustrative of temperature. I guess the point is the colours are not picked at random but are significant. Very interesting info none the less. Capital photographer (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Matt Deres. Pstuart84 Talk 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per above diego_pmc (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support Instead of viewing this as a picture, it should be treated as a figure/drawing as this image was generated by NASA following studies on the topic of CMB. This image has high en value. --Kalyan (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar; it's important and unquestionably of high encyclopedic value, but it's not that interesting until a viewer already knows a fair bit about what it illustrates.--ragesoss (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support high enc. value and per Matt Deres. Spencer^T♦C 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:WMAP 2008.png --jjron (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)