Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Terrestrial planet size comparisons.jpg

Terrestrial planet size comparisons

Original

Edit 1 - horizontal resolution was tripled, and the four 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
were superimposed over the old globes

Reason: I was browsing through some featured pictures, specifically Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Astronomy, when a link led me to Terrestrial planet, where I found this image. I think the image very encyclopedic and that it adds a lot of value to the articles it illustrates.
Proposed caption: The terrestrial planets, which are primarily composed of silicate rocks, compared by size. The term is derived from the Latin word for Earth, "Terra", so an alternate definition would be that these are planets are, in some notable fashion, "Earth-like". From left to right: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.
Articles this image appears in: Terrestrial planet, Solar System
Creator: NASA ([1])

Support as nominator Boricuaeddie 02:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's a nice image, but it's rather small. I'd like to see a bit more planetary detail if I zoomed in. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the main point is not to show the planets, but to compare their sizes. Maybe it can be uploaded again, but this time a little bigger. Do you wish for it to be a specific size? --Boricuaeddie 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It'd be nice if the planets were, say, in the range of 1200-1600 px high, or even bigger, if possible. As it is, it's not giving terribly more information than simple circles would. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Introduce edit 1 — Jack · talk · 23:38, Friday, 24 August 2007
Support A nice informative image that clearly shows the size comparision of the inner planets.--Southern Texas 03:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has been nominated twice already in April 2006 and February 2007. --Uberlemur 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 14:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I don't believe it's proper to bring a personal issue with Mbz1 into all nominations he or she has recently voted on. Jumping cheese 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support a tad bigger would be nice but that would only help aesthetically, the image its self is fine --Childzy ₪ Talk 07:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Several reasons, won't give them all, most have come up in its previous noms. Even though it is within guidelines, I rather agree with Adam on size, but wouldn't oppose just for that. Probably my main issue is that I find it a bit offputting, if not rather misleading, to show a radar image of Venus alongside regular visible light images of the other planets. I can sort of understand why it may have been done, but I don't like it. --jjron 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely piece with good encylopedic value (something thats often overlooked in my opinion in favour of pretty pictures of flowers which arent really that encylopedic). Size is good in my opinion, as if you want a picture of earth we have better quality ones elsewhere, this isn't about that, its about comparison and it does that very well. Provided its technically correct it has my full support.WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 11:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful, yes, but certainly not an example of the top fraction of a % of Wikipedia's best images. I'm sure this could be recreated fairly easily in far greater detail from free US gov images, and if it's only comparison—not detail—you want to show, then it could be made more useful by including all the planets, as well as some other massive objects. ~ Veledan • T 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's usefulness dictates the planets it includes and its level of detail. It illustrates exactly what it says it does. I agree it would be nice to have more detail, but that detail is somewhat irrelevant for its purpose. --Midnightdreary 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I have previously nominated this image, and upon a suggestion I created edit 1. However, I did a bit of a shitty job (courtesy of paint); if anyone could do a better job, using my instructions, please feel free. It would surely be a featurable picture — Jack · talk · 23:35, Friday, 24 August 2007
- Looks fine. Thanks. BTW, I suggest you use Inkscape; it's much better than Paint :-) --Boricuaeddie 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "It would surely be a featurable picture" - well, not necessarily Jack; it addresses size concerns, but doesn't address the factual concerns raised in my vote above, and Adam's comment below. --jjron 15:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little worried about that smooth band on mercury - it's not reality, it's just somewhere for which we don't know what it looks like, but this isn't indicated. Also, I think it'd be better to use a cloudy Venus in this case, to match the other images. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original, Weak Oppose Edit 1. Edit One's size is better, but I still weak oppose per jjron and Adam. --NauticaShad e s 01:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consenus MER-C 09:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]