Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mystic Mountain, Hubble images.jpg

File:Mystic Mountain, Hubble images.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 05:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by LuisArmandoRasteletti - nominated by LuisArmandoRasteletti -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Highly educational, but looks noisy and oversharpened. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~FPX|it is much below the size requirements (2Mp) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Alves, it is not actually below the size requirements. It is 4 mp. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please, let's be serious! If a larger version of the picture was uploaded, than the nominator should have informed this forum. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really an oppose, but I'm starting to get sick of all those Nasa pics. What don't we bot-set them to FP status once and for all ? - Benh (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh; also strange pointed stars. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we can't stop promoting NASA pics just because we've promoted many of them already..! --Aqwis (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well depends. It's so easy for them to take similar shots just because universe offers infinite possibilities once u've stuck that telescope in space, and we see so many here now that's it's becoming both common, and boring. Common != not extraordinary and -to me- this means much less chance of becoming FP - Benh (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Its pretty mega. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad file name. Should be called "Carina Nebula something". The file name should reflect the informative purpose of the Wikimedia projects and be as close as possible to the scientific terms used by the scientists who deal with that sort of pictures during their scientific work. (If they invent crazy names sounding like Science Fiction to make a buzz in the mass media, we should not use that name or at the very least use quotation marks). It is a duplicate of File:HH 901 and HH 902 in the Carina nebula (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg, which was uploaded earlier ? Don't we usually delete duplicates ? Teofilo (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]