Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hubble Space Telescope SM4

Hubble Space Telescope
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2012 at 02:25:19 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good picture, has EV, not a picture that is often found, or often taken.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Hubble Space Telescope List of large optical telescopes + 2 others
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Space/Astronomy
 * Creator:NASA


 * Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a goo pic, but I like this one better (scale): STS-103 Hubble EVA.jpg TCO (Reviews needed) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.s.  What is the haze above the upper part of it?  I see haze in other space shots too.  Is that stars or Milky Way?  -TCO
 * I've reformatted your vote as having that big picture in the middle of the page was very off-putting and confusing. I've put it as an Alt; not sure if you intended this, if not you can change that, but otherwise we don't just stick big random pics in the middle of the page as it confuses what people are meant to be assessing. --jjron (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lots better layout! I was just trying to have discussion, not to disrupt.  Srsly.  ;-)  I wasn't really proposing an alternate, but maybe interesting to let that horse run.  I think I (and a common reader, really using the pic or an article writer choosing it) looks much more at framing and content and the like than just the technical aspects.  Worry a little that we get so quick to the technical, we lose the step back and think about just how useful it is to illustrate.  That said, my pic shows scale, but is a little confusing with the solar cells askew and the boom coming in.  But the other one looks a bit like an aluminum foil wrapped trash can.  Actually, I know this sounds "wrong", but in some ways the best pic might just be taken on earth (better conditions for shooting and can have scale and the like shown...of course it is not "in action" then).  But I'm babbling.  Anyhow, those are some thoughts.  On the haze, I wonder if that is from "shooting through the window" of the orbiter?  Or is there an external camera?  I really see this haze a lot on space shots, if you look at the big version and it is strange.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I replaced the alt with a newer version (Original alt was from STS-103 in 1999. New alt is from STS-125 in 2009). I prefer the original myself. You can't really see the scale of Hubble to the space shuttle in the alt, as you can't see the full size of the shuttle for a good comparison. Dusty777 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I might be more amenable to supporting the original if it had a better caption. (And captioning IS a formal criteria...and caption text is hugely important text...really helps connect the illo to what we should get out of it usefully in info.)  Instead of telling us all this photographic trivia of when and how the photo was taken, tell us about the OBJECT.  I assume the cylinder is sort of the barrel of the telescope and the thing that looks like an open mailpost door is like the lens cover...and then mention the solar cell ear looking things.  And mention the periscope sticking out thingie (what is that).TCO (Reviews needed) 17:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find a place to find content to create a "better caption", feel free. If you will note, its a picture of the Hubble Space Telescope being released from Space Shuttle Atlantis, not a picture of the HST itself (if that makes any sense to you). Dusty777 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)