Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black Hole

Black Hole

 * Reason:Very good resolution, and is catchy to the eye.
 * Articles this image appears in:
 * Black hole
 * Technology in Science Fiction
 * Creator:?

MER-C 08:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator &mdash; ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   22:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This needs a better description (tell us that it's an artist's impression), and I think the entire thing may be CGI-ed. I have added an alternative which is also distorted using editing software, but I think it uses a real astronomy picture as a base. (That's a complete guess as that one doesn't have a good description either.)--HereToHelp 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A better description where? "Simulated" isn't good enough? -- Phoenix  (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The image description page says "Gravitational distortions caused by a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic cloud". (Not even a period!) Where do you see "simulated"? (Captions in article aren't enough; that information needs to be present on the image page.)--HereToHelp 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'll go out on a limb here... the picture is ugly... it doesn't really add much to the understanding of a black hole... (it's, literally, just a black hole with some distortion on a picture of space). The first image shows no sign that it's done as a serious scientific explanation rather than fan art of some sort.  The alternative may have a better explanation of why it's important in helping to understand a black hole but I can't read it (if someone wants to explain that, it would be helpful).  I would say that this series does a pretty decent job since it shows the differences from different distances or that this (if made into an SVG) helps explain distortion of light.  But, this image is not aesthetically pleasing and in itself doesn't help me understand what a black hole is any better than  ·   --gren グレン 03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both for now It isn't clear how these images were made, and if they are anything more than using a corny photoshop filter. If these images were made by someone with knowledge of astrophysics and they were applying theoretical mathematics or some other form of actual research into creating these images, I'd be more likely to support. The first one may even work as an artist's interpretation, but the second one just seems like a couple of clicks with photoshop (i.e. nothing special, thus not wikipedia's best work). Is there anyway to get more information on how the images were created, and what they exactly are depicting?-Andrew c 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It does show gravitational distortion well and the size is great, but I agree with HeretoHelp—I'd like to know where the original image came from before changing my vote. Amphy 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)