Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ISSMarch09

International Space Station, March of 2009

Original - the International Space Station as of March 2009, in Low Earth orbit, at an altitude of approximately 350 km (220 mi) travelling at 27,724 kilometres (17,227 mi) per hour.

Reason: This image adds exceptionally to the article that it is a part of. On top of that, it is an incredible view of the marvels human engineering is capable of.
Articles this image appears in: International Space Station
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Spiral5800 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image given the circumstances. Why are there two types of units in the caption?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the units. Thanks Spiral5800 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support Though some annyoing technical flaws, I'm willing to weak support because of, as HTH says above, the circumstances. As similar photo, File:ISS after STS-117 in June 2007.jpg, is of much worse quality. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote reconsidered --> full support. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heavy JPEG artifacting, but wow, what a picture! Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Oppose Quality just isn't there. The EV is good, but hurt by the poor quality. I bet we can find a better picture of the ISS than this. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that NASA took this photo, and took it in March, unfortunately I doubt you're going to be able to find a better picture - especially considering that only as of a very recent shuttle mission have all the solar panels been installed (I believe the same shuttle mission that installed the last of the solar panels took this picture.) Please try - wikipedia would certainly benefit were you to find a better one and I would wholeheartedly lend it my support for FP nomination. That said, I very much doubt that, currently, any better picture exists. Of course, you could always take a quick trip up there and snap a better one with your Nikon =) Spiral5800 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - NASA should have a better quality, less compressed version. The original 12mp image from NASA is around 700kb only. --Muhammad(talk) 09:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if they do, they do. I have not seen any evidence that that's the case. So right now, it's the best we have, and I don't think the quality hurts the EV. — Jake Wartenberg 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my vote to full oppose per my comment below. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The EV of this image completely overshadows the quality issues, in my opinion. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV. — Jake Wartenberg 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good EV. If a better version is found, this can be replaced --Muhammad(talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another possible image here, and another thing to remember is that these images are going to be out of date fairly quickly. Seddσn ^talk 02:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. At 27,000kph it should have the earth rushing past it, right? Umm, seriously, given that NASA operates under generous image licensing, I'm not at all convinced that better publicly released images of the ISS do not exist. It has very high encyclopedic value, but this shouldn't trump the lack of quality if better examples exist. I'm open to convincing on the matter, so I'm not opposing for now. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I've decided to support, per Mikaul. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can see this has been rotated 180 degrees. Land isn't visible, but isn't this bending the facts just a bit? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's probably the best image we have of the ISS right now, and there are quite a few. A tricky subject to start with, most of the panels seems to have been recorded pretty well so there's good EV here. Some lens aberration around the edges, but not bad detail elsewhere considering the compression. Worth noting that NASA like image compression for practical reasons and are pretty good at it, so don't read too much into small file sizes. --mikaul^talk 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I can't go and take a better picture myself... I love space... Gazhiley (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture Seddon linked to proves to me that better pictures of the ISS definitely exist. Clearly, then, an exception shouldn't be made for this inferior quality picture. Because of this, I changed my vote above. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:ISS_March_2009.jpg The consensus is obvious, though it seems if a better image can be found, that is up to date, it should be nominated to replace this image. The image found by Seddon may have a bit higher resolution, but the artifacting is worse (I also think that the composition of the FPC is better, but that's my opinion). Either way, this is a pass. --wadester 16 04:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]