Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arctic eclipse.jpg

Image:Arctic eclipse.jpg, not featured edit

Info created by NASA's Terra satellite — uploaded by Durova — nominated by sfu
~~Support~~ -- Sfu (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I must admit I didn't watch this image in full size, I just trusted en FP ... When trying to identify the islands seen on the right, I've found no Canada and no Greenlad here. There is the sea in most of the image. Especially artifacts in center of the shadow are hard to explain using cities theory. --Sfu (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Cool image. But is up north ? I have a hard time recognicing exactly where the land is. And there are many bright spots scattered over the image, what are they ? /Daniel78 (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tons of artefacts (bright spots) spoil the picture. Lycaon (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean that city lights? If so, that's how the Earth it's seen from above in the moment of the Eclipse (if that's what you mean). Minisarm (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, the great cities of the north pole ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Eclipse covered Northen Canada, Greenland, Norway and Siberia (see [Image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 here]), so there are cities and towns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minisarm (talk • contribs)

I'm sure there are a few towns and villages, but the bright spots seem to be mostly at sea and between the pack ice...??? And if they were on land, they would never account for the spots: population density is extremely low over there. Moreover, the 'lights' are visible where there is no umbra, so no need for illumination during Arctic summer. Nope, just artefacts, probably as explained in the link below. -- Lycaon (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I changed my mind, it looks like those white spots are actually errors, and in that case there are way too much of it. Is this what it is ? They look quite directional to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!--Sensl (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is interesting (to some), but it's not visually that beautiful. Perhaps this is a good candidate for the Valued Image contest. --Specious (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose high wow, but has too many artefacts ... some are even blue rectangles Ianare (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Base64 (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. -SuperJew (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Courtesy to National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America, strong artifacts. --Base64 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. naerii 08:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]