Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:White dwarf in AE Aquarii.jpg

Image:White dwarf in AE Aquarii.jpg, notfeatured

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2008 at 22:05:33

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Kimse - nominated by Simeon87 -- Simeon87 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simeon87 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! --moralist (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No relevance, as there is no possible proof of this artist's impression. Lycaon (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean encyclopaedic relevance? This is not the only relevance an image can have. --norro 13:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per here (a very similar FPC with 6 oppose, 3 Support and 1 neutral). I will re-iterate my previous comment:

"This is an awsome illustration from NASA, as almost all NASA illustrations. As of now, no Nasa illustration is FP from what I can see. I am wondering if we want to start voting for those images as Nasa has litterally hundreds of such illustrations: robots on mars, satelites, future projects, etc. Should such works of art be notable or of great value in addition of being beautiful? After all, this is the artist's conception of an event (with some personal input such as the blue flames that may not be a real representation), not a picture of the real event itself. If we vote for this one, are we creating a precedent to every illustration that is "simply beautiful"?" --S23678 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each image should be considered on a case by case basis.. in this case, it's an artist impression and not a scientificly accurate photograph. And from that (artistical) perspective, it's imo an image of featured picture quality. A factually correct depiction of this cosmic phenomenom would be quite important in a valued image but in this case, the artist impression also has value (albeit not a scientific one). - Simeon87 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Of course we cannot have genuine photographs of that kind of cosmic phenomena. So we only have so-called artist impressions. As I'm not an astronomer, I cannot judge if this is scientifically correct. Anyhow, technically and artistically it is very good, positively suggestive, didactic and even thrilling: it has definitely a wow factor and is certainly more than "simply beautiful". But I doubt if all those NASA pictures should be promoted as FP. -- MJJR (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as sometimes there are engravings or paintings which become FP, an artist impression can also become FP. It's like a painting on the computer --SuperJew (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon --Romwriter (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per S23678. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Crusier (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an artists impression. It is amazing and beautiful. It is not a picture so it should not be critisied as one. 78.150.0.114 14:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Anonymous votes are not allowed! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per previous opposers --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 supports, 5 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]