Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Africaaaaaaaaa.jpg

Satellite image of Africa

 * Reason:Didn't get enough time to be fully considered in the first nomination. 31 megapixels of visible spectrum satellite imagery of Africa, via NASA. Similar images of North and South America are already featured.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Africa, Natural history of Africa, Geography of Africa
 * FP category for this image:Views of Earth from space and satellites
 * Creator:NASA


 * Support as nominator -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What's with the filename? In any case, we JUST voted on this. Why would you re-nominate it immediately? -- mcshadypl T C  18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous nom was closed as "confusing". If you prefer that we re-open it to allow additional feedback, I guess that's a possibility too. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. --Avenue (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * because I believe this crop has enough distinct encyclopedic value to be featured independently (as do the other crops mentioned above). --Avenue (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Qyestion I'm probably fighting precedent with this one, but after featuring File:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg, is it acceptable to feature crops of it? HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure, but personally I'm leaning against featuring crops of current FPs.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't vote on them as I agree with this sentiment... Gazhiley (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is something wrong with requesting that the image be from a different source. How many satellites do we really need? Africa I think is just as entitled to being featured on the front page as those other two continents. Mediawiki just doesn't allow embedding cropped views of a larger source image in articles, so we're stuck with featuring them one by one. Btw, Australia, Antarctica, and the Sahara have also been done - see Featured pictures/Views of Earth from space and satellites. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's kinda the point... In theory we could have a FP of the whole globe, and also then individual FP's of the same cropped picture which to me and apparently a couple of other people is a duplication... Gazhiley (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood your point, and I'm trying to explain to you that there currently isn't another way of doing it. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean that this is therefore the way to do it... Gazhiley (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's hear the alternative, then. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You already said there isn't?! Gazhiley (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a featured set, e.g. containing the image for the whole world and a crop for each of the continents? --Avenue (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Should FPs be judged on their EV? The world image clearly doesn't have the same EV in Africa as this image does. That creates a need for a new image, hence the possibility for this new image to be featured--standing on its own value. The Blue Marble image offers the possibility for derivative works to stand on their own legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.163.110 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dislike the featured set idea, because those are for when the images support and explain each other (i.e. different zoom levels of the Mandelbrot set, or pages of the U.S. Constitution). I guess the question is, is Africa (or North/South America) a subject distinct from the whole world, such that this image is superior to an image that contains it exactly, and then more? I would hazard that's a yes. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I am with PLW on this one. We need FPs of each continent and I so no other way of doing so. --Muhammad (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why need? Gazhiley (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Need was probably the wrong word to use. But I believe the individual images also add significantly to the articles they illustrate and hence meet the criteria for FPs. And I wonder why this is being raised now, after some similar images have already been featured. --Muhammad (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why now? Who knows. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This is an excellent-quality and extremely useful image.  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: EV couldn't be better. The fact that it's a crop of a larger image seems irrelevant to me.  The larger image couldn't really be used in the article to illustrate Africa or any other continent, and I don't see why we shouldn't be illustrating them if we have the perfect source for it.   Mae din\ talk 22:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It isn't really a satellite picture, FWIW. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above, I would support the creation of so-called "featured sets." But as for now, support. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I know I'm probably on my own here, but frankly I just don't think a crop of an existing FP is feature-worthy. As Gazhiley has pointed out, there is no 'need' for FPs of continents. I'm not completely opposed to a featured set, however. Nautica Shad es  00:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)