Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rings of Saturn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Saturn eclipse exaggerated
- Reason
- This is a brilliant depiction of the rings of Saturn, with the planet backlit by the Sun, showing all parts and rings very clearly. It is also a very symmetrical composition.
- Proposed caption
- The full set of rings, as photographed by the Cassini spacecraft on September 15, 2006 (brightness has been exaggerated in this image).
- Articles this image appears in
- Rings of Saturn
- Creator
- NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute
- Support as nominator Dane13 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very strong support--Mbz1 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support and comment: NASA says This marvelous panoramic view was created by combining a total of 165 images taken by the Cassini wide-angle camera over nearly three hours on Sept. 15, 2006. The full mosaic consists of three rows of nine wide-angle camera footprints; only a portion of the full mosaic is shown here. Color in the view was created by digitally compositing ultraviolet, infrared and clear filter images and was then adjusted to resemble natural color." Caption should point out that the colors are adjusted. Spikebrennan 17:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Also note the small white dot inside the outer rings on the left side, and wave. --Golbez 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)- Support - Wonderful image; I adjusted the caption; please improve as you see fit. --TotoBaggins 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I like the caption, though the main subject article (bolded out for POTD's) should probably be more prominent. I'm not sure how; I may take a swing at it later. --Peter 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - A different version of this image, Image:Saturn eclipse.jpg is already featured... Goodmanjaz 20:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good find. Based on this, I think only one should be featured; given equal footing, I'd vote for this one, but the other has already been a FP and POTD. What about delisting that one and promoting this one in its place? --Peter 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I prefer this one, it's brighter and easier to see. So far as I know. the colors for both were adjusted, so it's not like one is more encyclopaedic than the other. --Golbez 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- This image was originally nominated here, but did not win. That said, I prefer the original, unedited version. --Goodmanjaz 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Close the nomination? The preference was for the unedited version during the last nomination. Jumping cheese 11:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have to say that this current edited version looks really atrocious; it is brighter, but the quality is seriously degraded and there are artifacts present in the picture. I think that the image that I originally submitted should be the one that is featured.--Dane13
- True, look at the upper hemisphere of Saturn - it's really washed out. I think based on that alone, and considering we already have the same picture featured, I have to switch to oppose.--Golbez 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you to whomever replaced the picture with the original. It looks much better now.--Dane13
- True, look at the upper hemisphere of Saturn - it's really washed out. I think based on that alone, and considering we already have the same picture featured, I have to switch to oppose.--Golbez 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have to say that this current edited version looks really atrocious; it is brighter, but the quality is seriously degraded and there are artifacts present in the picture. I think that the image that I originally submitted should be the one that is featured.--Dane13
- Close the nomination? The preference was for the unedited version during the last nomination. Jumping cheese 11:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- This image was originally nominated here, but did not win. That said, I prefer the original, unedited version. --Goodmanjaz 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think I prefer this one, it's brighter and easier to see. So far as I know. the colors for both were adjusted, so it's not like one is more encyclopaedic than the other. --Golbez 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good find. Based on this, I think only one should be featured; given equal footing, I'd vote for this one, but the other has already been a FP and POTD. What about delisting that one and promoting this one in its place? --Peter 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted (already promoted). MER-C 08:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
