Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gravitational microlensing events

Gravitational microlensing[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2022 at 15:21:07 (UTC)

**Original** – Gravitational microlensing events over the galactic map of the Milky Way as observed by Gaia spacecraft from 2014 to 2018 (Time ticker is on the bottom left corner of the animation)

Reason: Gravitational microlensing events observed by the Gaia spacecraft from 2014 to 2018. Good illustration in the Gravitational microlensing article.
Articles in which this image appears: Gravitational microlensing, Gaia (spacecraft)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator: ESA/Gaia/DPAC, European Space Agency

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Artist's impression, not a true picture. --Janke | Talk 18:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's not a true picture, but it's not just an artist's impression. It's a compilation of measurements from 2014 to 2018 by the European Space Agency using Gaia (spacecraft) observatory. It's compiled by a team at the University of Warsaw which includes a professor of astronomy: [1], published on a website of the European Space Agency (www.cosmos.esa.int). I don't see how it's any different than the animation in This nomination/FP. Bammesk (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that other example (which I supported) is directly imaged, while this is not. There has obviously been an artistic decision in choosing how large and bright the flashes are, and how long they last. It's for that reason I oppose this one - it looks like an Xmas decoration... --Janke | Talk 09:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC) PS: Compare with the true lead image in the article...[reply]

It's a mapping of scientific measurements. The Milky Way is too: [2]. FPs don't have to be direct images. Bammesk (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - On the basis that it is an image created from scientific measurements and not an artist's impression. Kylesenior (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Janke. I'm not comfortable with an animated creation that purports to be images of reality. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Well made, interesting. Yann (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Informative, interesting, and eye-catching animation that makes good use of a combination of photography and synthetic data. We should not disqualify such images for being something that they aren't; we should judge them for what they are. Also, did you know that most of those still "photos" of distant astronomical objects in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out are also not true photographs? They are compiled by taking data measured in wavelengths that are not visible and translated by mapping that data to the intensities of visible light channels. Also, did you know that many of the "photos" that we have here of bugs and other macro-scale things are not true photos? They are compiled by taking many photos with different focus planes and compositing them together. There is no eye or camera that would see them in a single instant as they are displayed in the image. I don't see the difference in principle between those and this. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. It looks like a galaxy bombarded by supernovas. -- Veggies (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they actually were supernovas, I wouldn't oppose... but it's just lensing! --Janke | Talk 09:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]