Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Shoemaker crater.jpg

Shoemaker Crater Aerial View
Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 15:09:50 (UTC)
 * Reason:An, IMO, spectacular (satellite?) shot of one of the largest and very old meteorite strikes on the planet.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Shoemaker crater
 * FP category for this image:Landscapes
 * Creator:U.S. Department of the Interior, uploaded by Zumthie


 * Support as nominator -- I'ḏ ♥  One  15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty at first glance, but after all it is just a 1.5MP image that looks like an abstract painting. I find it difficult to relate to. There is no sense of scale, no recognizable features. This does not help me get an idea of how the crater looks like. --Dschwen 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I appreciate this may seem ridiculous, but where's the crater? J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To above, this is my guess from my amateur knowledge of meteorite strikes. When a meteorite strikes it creates a very hard layer of melted rock, this could probably become a bed for lakes to form if large enough, and this one is large enough. Also, it's 18 miles across and 2 billion years old, I think it's probably eroded and mostly filled in over time, so it's not as easy to see its circle, but this should help you see it, it's there. I could be wrong, but it looks like the meteorite actually hit a mountain range, it must've been an interesting sight to behold -- from, maybe 100 miles away! -- I'ḏ ♥  One  22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I’m seeing a number of really encyclopedic, interesting nominations recently. This is another. Greg L (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not very high resolution for a satellite image, nor is it sharp. It looks pretty compressed, actually.Hypershadow647 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is it not sharp? Are you taking into account that the area of the image shown is something like 3000 square miles (Appx. 50mi×55mi)? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I keep on thinking I've seen much sharper satellite images, but I can't find any examples (anywhere) to support this, so I guess my expectations are just too high. My bad.Hypershadow647 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well,that corresponds to a bit more than 60m per pixel. Landsat can do up to four times better. Modern non-classified satellites have up to half a meter (GeoEye-1) resolution. In any case 60m is not impressive, in particular if you cannot see anything useful on the image. --Dschwen 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm afraid I just can't tell what I'm looking at here, and no one has enlightened me. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my comment above. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dschwen. No real sense of what we're looking at or sense of scale, small for a satellite image.  Jujutacular  talk 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per J. Heart, I agree with your logic (what do you expect at a 50 mile focus?) but if I saw a smaller image of this, I wouldn't be inclined to pursue it. Gut Monk (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)