Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010.jpg

Deepwater Horizon oil spill on May 24, 2010
Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 08:51:54 (UTC)
 * Reason:Powerful image of the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 2010 in the United States
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Views of Earth from space and satellites
 * Creator:NASA/GSFC MODIS Rapid Response


 * Support as nominator --APK whisper in my ear  08:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per APK. Incredibly significant and illustrative picture.  — Becksguy (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Weak oppose - only 369kb for such a large image = massive jpeg artifacts when seen at full resolution. These are especially noticeable around the bottom-left corner. Great image otherwise, so I will support if a less compressed version becomes abailable. --Ephemeronium (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The uncropped original NASA image is seen here. It's 494KB and 2400x1800 pixels, and is the largest available of four versions on that NASA page. — Becksguy (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it needs cropped, I will support the image from NASA's site unmodified. There isn't really BAD jpg artifacts in that image, there is a lot of even color areas that allow for decent jpg compression though, so that could be a lot of it Ephemeronium. — raeky ( talk 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed mine to weak oppose, since file size complaints seem to be a fairly minor issue. Looking around, I see quite a lot of our current FPs are only a few hundred kilobytes in size. Still not sure whether I should oppose at all. --Ephemeronium (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I keep seeing arguments based on file size here. There is nothing about preserving every byte of the original source file in the featured picture criteria. Also, JPEG uses variable compression rate, so file size is only loosely correlated to image size. I assume NASA did its own cropping before posting the image on its website, so I'm not sure why we would need to do additional cropping unless there was a need to call out a specific detail; that doesn't seem to be the case here. The NASA image is very high res, so most monitors won't even display the entire image at once. There might be a case for doing a lower res version manually if someone has the skills to do a better job of it than the page loading software. Keep in mind that most people will only see the thumbnail version. A crop/deres version for wallpaper use might be useful, it's a bit too depressing for me to use as wallpaper though. Technical issues aside, the journalistic and explanatory value alone make it FP material for me.--RDBury (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I see very few JPEG artifacts, and there's huge EV in both articles. Admittedly it is a version with a locator which is used, but the locator makes it not so suitable for FP in my opinion.  Time3000 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Side note - The version with a locator was uploaded after my original nomination. APK  whisper in my ear  14:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Very informative. Yes, the quality isn't great, but it's still acceptable. Nautica Shad es  22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support — raeky ( talk 23:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)