Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fomalhaut debris disk

Fomalhaut debris disk

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 00:30:02 (UTC)

Reason: Unlike previous images, this recent one has no black gap near "iris" and is literally eye-catching.
Articles in which this image appears: Fomalhaut
FP category for this image: Looking out
Creator: NASA/Hubble

Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a very impressive real image of the fictional one. Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's going on with the black on the edges? J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the 10% on the left and right? Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the original crop, other versions also seem a bit trimmed. Twilightchill t 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support alternate~~ LOL the first thing I thought was the Eye of Sauron too! Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retracting support because the image does not seem significantly better than File:Fomalhaut_with_Disk_Ring_and_extrasolar_planet_b.jpg; is only used in one article (the last time I checked), and does not significantly add to the article beyond what is already achieved in the aforementioned picture. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-adding support for Alternate, which I believe is more encyclopedic. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Retracting support for Alternate because of low resolution. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hubble does an exemplary job of this stuff compared to my Nikon. There is no better way to illustrate “debris disk” than a photo of one. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternate Eye of Sauron!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly illustrative, yet unexceptional ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I dissagree entirely with Anetode's comment of unexeptional - hardly a regular sight to the average human so therefore by defenition an exception ergo exceptional... HOWEVER only weak support as the edges being cut annoy me slightly as subject is cut off... But not as if we can exactly just take another picture of it... gazhiley.co.uk 14:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ No caption. What am I looking at? --Sean 17:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Debris disk around Fomalhaut, featuring small spot of Fomalhaut b in the center" just under the picture is this caption... not sure where you are looking... gazhiley.co.uk 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, the caption is not accurate because Fomalhaut b is a planet orbiting Fomalhaut, and that small spot which is in the center is Fomalhaut and not Fomalhaut b. cf. coronagraph of Fomalhaut.
    - Fixed, thanks. Twilightchill t 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I was looking for it on the actual image page. Thanks. It's still a far cry from "descriptive, informative and complete" for those who don't already know what they're looking at, but I'll rescind my opposition. --Sean 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why this one and not File:Fomalhaut with Disk Ring and extrasolar planet b.jpg? It's the lead at Fomalhaut and Debris disk. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, that image has a black gap above the center. Putting it here anyway for preferences. Twilightchill t 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the version nominated here also has a chunk in the middle missing or taken from significantly different exposures (hence the dark "pupil" in center of the "eye"), presumably because it would not be possible to photograph the debris disk without covering up the star Fomalhaut (or else the star would overpower everything else). So missing chunks near the center is in fact commonplace. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment original has much much much higher resolution than the alt. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The alt is smaller than it could be, while the original has that strange crop/border. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's how most astrophysics pictures are taken. They try to minimize the exposure for things outside of the object of interest. Have you seen Family Portrait (Voyager)? Nergaal (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 5. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]