Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NGC 2467

NGC 2467
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 21:46:39 (UTC)
 * Reason:Found this doing well at FPC on Commons. Huge, vivid, and interesting picture with decent EV. I took out two Hubble images since the article is so short and this one was better quality. If anyone has objections to that, please feel free to let me know!
 * Articles in which this image appears:NGC 2467, European Southern Observatory
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
 * Creator:ESO


 * Support as nominator -- ceran  thor 21:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Is this a false-color image? Razum2010 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but I can't be sure.  ceran  thor 03:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. For comparison, see File:A cosmic concoction in NGC 2467.jpg, a composite of shots taken through red, blue, and green filters, roughly approximating the sensitivity of the human eye. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All colour cameras and photos more or less roughly approximate the sensitivity of the human eye. This is good enough. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; I expanded the image description and provided annotations (visible in Commons) that, I believe, help increase the EV of this image. In particular, one should note that the use of false colors is not at all arbitrary. In this image, red is used to denote the H-alpha line of hydrogen, while green denotes doubly-ionized oxygen OIII. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  ceran  thor 11:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support image has excellent technical quality and good encyclopedic value. But I don't think the Hubble photos should be removed from the article, since the Hubble photos have far greater magnification (field of view only 3.5 arcminutes compared to 29.77 arcminutes in this picture). Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had posted a reply before but it seems to have disappeared! Odd. My only worry is that given the length of the article I won't be able to include the images without using a gallery, which is typically frowned upon nowadays. Would anyone object to a gallery in this case?  ceran  thor 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can also try expanding the article to give you more room. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've expanded the article. Maybe we can attract another support vote before the deadline? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's hope so. Thanks for your expansion. :)  ceran  thor 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support technically excellent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I reinstalled the Hubble image and converted the link to Commons into a footnote. The article looks much, much better; thanks for your help Stigmatella.  ceran  thor 14:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Nice image. Well done on the article expansion, too. Julia\talk  18:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)