Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mars Endurance

Mars Endurance Crater (panorama)

 * Reason:High resolution, Very large (looked good at full resolution but wikipedia wouldn't let me upload the 30mb version), very encyclopedic.
 * Articles this image appears in:Endurance (crater), Opportunity rover
 * Creator:NASA/JPL/Cornell


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Chris H 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Very interesting, highly encyclopedic and great resolution. Cacophony 06:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice, fits all criteria. |→ Spaully₪† 08:30, 6 May 2007 (GMT)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support - Chris, I've found the full size (26.7Mb) version on NASA's page here (about half way down, 06-May-2004, or search for the words 'Buried Past'). I'll try to optimize and compress it for edit 01, but I still wholly support this version. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * for editing use this tiff version .Chris H 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support for this or a higher rez version. Great pic, but it looks like a desolate place…--HereToHelp 12:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment! Is that a stitching error in the bottom right corner, on the spacecraft itself?--HereToHelp 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the rover. MER-C 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? It's right in the middle of the crop I'm putting up.--HereToHelp 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that is the rovers solar panel, this image shows a little more of them, it could be cropped out but I don't find it that distracting. Chris H 13:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just the object, it's the way the lines of the quadrilaterals don't meet up exactly, and all of them along the same line. Further evidence is the black area at the bottom that seems to curl up in one place and is cut off along the same line that divides the lines of the solar cells.--HereToHelp 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, that area is the same as a blank space, the fact that the rover is blocking the landscape at all is the defect, I thought of blacking out that area, but I think that might be worse.Chris H 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit Per Debivort's explanation of the stitching error (much better on the rover than the ground!) and the color calibration.--HereToHelp 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. High resolution, high enc, and sharp. The stitching error is minor in the scope of things—this is just a great shot. -- Tewy  17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons mentioned, beautiful. -- Phoenix  (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Encyclopedic, atmospheric and technically sound for photograph taken in space. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added edit 01 by me. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * support orignal /oppose alt great! The stitching error arises because the geometric warping is calibrated to the distance of the ground, rather than the rover deck, I believe. As for the edit, NASA spends a lot of time and effort to calibrate the color in their images (because they are used for scientific analysis) - especially in natural color images such as this one. So, let's keep the view as close to real life as we know it. Debivort 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support A simply gorgeous image that meets the criteria. Like Debivort, I'm not as big a fan of the edit as I am of the original, but I would not oppose making the edit featured (rather, I'd prefer the original receive that acclaim). -- Kicking222 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit/support original I see no reason to 'color correct'. The edit upped the contrast which most likely does not represent how the scene actually looked. The original meets the technical requirements, and is encyclopedic and a very difficult image to simply go out and re-shoot. -Andrew c 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Excellent point and important distinction: normally, on this planet, arbitrary colour-correction and tonal tweaks to make images to look more "natural" are (encyclopedically) no big deal, even desirable. This is one of those exceptional instances where there's no such thing as "natural"; in these (rare) cases we need to perform the absolute minimum post-processing possible to stand the greatest chance of faithfully representing what is basically an unverifiable scene. mikaultalk 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already commented, but since there's an edit now, I'm commenting to oppose that edit. There is no need for color "correction". - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw edit - good point Andrew, MGM, Debivort - I hadn't thought of that argument, and now I have, I find myself opposing my own edit. I'll leave the edit on Commons for a few days, then delete it. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fascinating Image Support Booksworm Talk to me! 16:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This is amazing. Definitely meets the criteria. Wikipediarul e s 2221  06:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Will make an excellent Featured Image. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)