Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Felix from the International Space Station

Hurricane Felix from the International Space Station

 * Reason:A large resolution picture of excellent subject content and quality. I feel that this picture is in a class of its own compared to other pictures taken from space. There are few that have such excellent panorama and able to maintain good subject content without it being just white cloud with no contrast. There is good contrast between earth, atmosphere and space with a good balance between cloud and sea/land to provide an excellent picture worthy of FPC
 * Articles this image appears in:Hurricane Felix (2007)
 * Creator:Expedition 15 astronaut


 * Support as nominator Seddon69 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support excellent textures, and angle makes the altitude of the craft clear. Durova Charge! 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From PPR discussion, current FPs at a glance that are somewhat similar: [[Image:Gafilo_2004-03-06_0655Z.jpg|30px]], [[Image:Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg|30px]] and to an extent even [[Image:Top of Atmosphere.jpg|30px]]. --jjron (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally i feel that this picture is a combination the best features of those FP's that you have mentioned and is a much more visually pleasing and of better content than the three of them. Seddon69 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Juliancolton (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hurricane is cropped and there is no reference for scale. If I hadn't seen a picture of a hurricane from space before I would have no idea what this is. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the curvature of the earth? I would argue that it provides a sense of scale that the other 3 FPs jjron linked to don't have. Cacophony (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cacophony makes an excellent point, and along with what Durova mentioned earlier, I don't think theres a way this picture misses out on encyclopaedic value or easy identification of what it is. Not to mention, it's in an article, so when you saw it, you'd have the concept smack dead in front of you to relate to it. (Also, Support.) --84.90.46.116 (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't personally think that similar FPs should be used a consideration for current ones. For the curvature of the earth to be effective it would need to show the diameter at the equator. The cyclone over Iceland is much better. I agree it's a cool picture, but I think it would do better featured on the commons. I stand by my original remarks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont want to dazzle people with terminology and science because it isn't really needed but there is a reasonable difference in what the low pressure system over Iceland is and what the hurricane in the Carribean is. Seddon69 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks...--Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Pretty much for the above reasons - this is great! Adam Cuerden talk 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This can't really be compared to those other FPs; both of them are overhead satellite images and one of them isn't even of the same subject content (they are all pictures of clouds though). The lack of perspective/scale is an issue but from what I've seen of low-altitude images from space this is always a problem simply because the picture is taken from so close to the earth; the Felix picture is about the best I've seen from this category just in terms of the angle and distance of the storm when the picture was taken. — jdorje (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 03:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)