Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/STS-116 Launch

STS-116 Launch

Edit 1, lightened with curves

I have nominated this picture because I find it to be a nice shot. I realize it has some problems with quality, but I hope somebody can clean it up. This picture is currently not in any articles; however, a version that is used as a thumbnail is found on the main page. That version is not as high-quality as this picture. It can be found here. This image was taken by NASA and is public domain. Photo credit: NASA/Sandra Joseph, Robert Murray, Chris Lynch

Nominate and support. - Sharkface217 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too dark. The upper part of the rocket is barely visible. Redquark 19:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support - slight blur reduces its effective resolution, but the darkness adds to the encyclopedicity as night launches are rare, the last apparently happening more than 4 years ago. I also found surprising detail in the launch structure and the illumination of the steam clouds quite interesting to look at. Debivort 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support- I agree the value of the picture is very high and should be a FP. --Tobyw87 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. I lightened the shadows with the curve tool. --Janke | Talk 20:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, grainy, not used in article. Use in article is evidence of encyclopedic value and this doesn't have that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though it's in an article, it's grainy and doesn't show detail very well. Pretty, but not informative. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now It is not in an article. Weak support original Good depiction of an unusual event. My support is weak because of the graininess, and alot of the frame is without details. Lightening it only makes this worse so the original is prefered. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it to the Space Shuttle Discovery article as well as the STS-116 article and as you can see from the articles it is clearly encyclopedic. The image has a very good quality. Yes it is not of the absolute best but I think the fact that it is a night image needs to be taken into account. If wikipedia adopts such strict guidelines for FPs then there will be very few night images of this type. --Tobyw87 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose original, oppose edit - It's encyclopaedic but the composition is a bit lacking (could have used a taller tripod to get over that fence in the FG, there's a lot of black space) and the image quality is pretty poor. A day shot would be better for encyclopaedic representation of the launchpad structures, and we already have a pretty cool featured pic of an evening launch. Oh, and oppose alternate angle because it's JPEGged to buggery. --YFB ¿ 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Oppose! I Support Image:Sts116-launch.png's update to a FP. The other one, Image:STS-116 Launch (KSC-06PD-2750).jpg is an oppose'
Oppose. Compared with our existing FP of a Shuttle launching , this is lacking. howch e ng {chat} 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a close look at it, I'm not impressed with the existing FP either. I just nominated it for delisting. Redquark 03:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we are really getting a picture of this shuttle launch (we have 116 launches to choose from), I'd rather have something more interesting. Image:STS-116 Launch (KSC-06PD-2768).jpg is a better close-up and an unusual fish-eye view (not sure why NASA did this). And I didn't know that the platform was flooded with water till I see this picture (lower right) and read the caption. This image can be found in the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 article, which explains more on the water. --PFHLai 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image:Sts116-launch.png (the one captioned "Different angle of liftoff"); oppose all others. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
N Oppose all too dark. A great FP if lit up in day. Reywas92^Talk 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - So no FP can be taken at night? FPs should be diverse, why should we limit ourselves,, for a night time pic i think its fantastic. --Tobyw87 00:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]