Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NGC 2244

NGC 2244

 * Reason:Extremely beautiful image and very educational.
 * Articles this image appears in:NGC 2244
 * Creator:NASA/JPL


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Chris H 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support- Sushant gupta 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are the halo things edited in? I noticed they weren't on the original in the file history. 8thstar 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the exact same thing. The resolution when compared to everything else suggested to me when I first looked at the image that they were added to highlight those 4 stars. I imagine that they are there to show the stars in the clustor (because there is a brighter star which is in proximity to the others in the image, but I imagine is actually closer and not in the cluster). This needs to be cleared up. However, the use of translucent halos, while stylized and reminiscent of nebula gas, actually works to confuse the viewer into thinking it may be part of the image. If we do need to highlight those four stars, we should use something more plain, geometric, and graphical for the highlight (like a white circle), so it is clear that the highlight is not part of the image (a nice caption could also clear up this issue without the use of editing the original image).-Andrew c 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the original image: I oppose the version with "highlighted danger zones". Mgiganteus1 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of the circly things. Debivort 00:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original Looks good.--HereToHelp 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original only. Mgiganteus1 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original - Halos detract from the image, the original obviously doesn't suffer from this. Supaluminal 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original. The cluster highlights are too distracting for the edited image to be an FP. Amphy 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose halos, neutral, original. gren グレン 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Anyone else notice the grain? The distinct lack of sharpness? Astronomical pictures are capable of being much much better than this. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original only. While many astronomical pictures are much sharper than this one, you have to remember to consider the source.  The Spitzer Space Telescope sees in infrared, not visible, wavelengths.  And the reduction in sharpness compared to pictures made with visible light, is from the increased wavelength of the infrared light.  Also, the fact that some think this could've been Photoshopped, I feel actually counts towards the support of the (original) image.  It's so good and weird looking, it fools some into thinking it's a fake.Calen716 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Calen716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose Too small, grainy, does not stand out among pictures of nebulae, esp. compared to NGC 3372. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Both especially the photoshopped edit. The stars in the former are a little grainy (but what can you expect from pictures taken in deep space?). This is really neat! --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original only All good astronomical images should be promoted IMHO. :) · AndonicO Talk 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sunshine Man 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC) , many more people voted for the original.Chris H 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)