Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NewSolarSystem2

The Solar System[edit]

New version2 by SG. Mediawiki thumbnailing does notwork on this file!

**Version 3** by SG, this time without quotes and back to JPEG (100%) because MediaWiki wasn't thumbnailing the PNG. -- AHH! Why are my thumbnails always broken?

Reason: Simple, encyclopedic, and interesting. I like how it's to scale.
Articles this image appears in: Planet, Definition of planet
Creator: NASA and edited by Poggymoose
Nominator: Pyro19

Support — Pyro19 10:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop!! this seems to be just an edit of Image:NewSolarSystem.jpg. But it cuts filesize in half and thereby introduces severe JPG artifacts (check out the small planets). Befor this gets voted upon I suggest to save a version with a higher quality. --Dschwen 11:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - quite bad JPEG artifacting, and this should be PNG for a diagram, strictly speaking. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the diagram includes photographs, as this does, it can be better as jpeg --Astrokey44 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, Heavens No! Why is this a JPEG? Very bad cast of artifacting. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support version 2~~ — I used the original JPEG as a base, then manually added in Eris' name using Photoshop and removed the most obvious artifacts. I saved it in PNG-24 to reduce any chance of further artifacting. ♠ SG →Talk 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support version 3. ♠ SG →Talk 04:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Version 2 looks much better, the artifacts are gone. Also once again highly encyclopedic. Arjun 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just changed the thumbnail size to 300px and still can't recognize what this is about, much less read the text. We need to take into account that probably the majority of readers never click on the image, so enc has to work at thumbnail size too. ~ trialsanderrors 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It makes very little sense that the main light source on the planets in the picture is in the opposite direction of the sun--the main light source that shines on the planets in real life. The shadows therefore only confuse the viewer, there may as well not be any shadows on the planets at all if it's just going to be a hypothetical science diagram. Slimjimsimpson 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather bad in thumbnail, when readers read they most likely don't click the image. Arjun 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about you, but I always click the image. With a diagram like this I certainly wouldn't just look at the thumbnail. Raven4x4x 07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Good point by Slimjimsimpson, otherwise a very good illustration. - Alvesgaspar 18:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above, and also it takes forever to load even as a thumbnail. The image has both photos (JPG) and text/solid black (PNG) and neither format handles both adequately.--Here T oHelp 14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Version 2. As Borat once said, "Is nice, I like!". Great diagram. It should definitely be a featured pic. "Very nice, how much?". :-) Ilikefood 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slimjim. I expect FPs to use proper punctuation; there should be no quotation marks. Reywas92^Talk_Sigs 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd support it if the quotes were taken off the two words (they are not necessary and look very odd) - Adrian Pingstone 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]