Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sahara satellite.jpg

Sahara satellite.jpg
Not a self nom. I definitely think this image fills the striking/impressive, as welll as the beautiful/fascinating. The image is used at Sahara and demonstrate well the actual immensity of the desert, which many geographical maps does not quite carry over. - Circeus 13:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - Circeus 13:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is actually a satellite-falsecolor composite as part of the Living Earth] project.  It is manufactured. --Kitch 17:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a satellite false-color image, as are Image:Mars_Valles_Marineris.jpeg, Image:Antarctica_satellite_globe.jpg, Image:Eagle_Nebula_-_NASA.jpg, and Image:Sunspot_TRACE.jpg (all featured already). There are many other mosaics, false-color images, and evendiagrams, if you can imagine, that have been featured.  I don't think "manufactured" (presuably meaning by a more sophisticated process than capture by photographic film, development, scanning, cropping, and photoshop editing) is a reasonable criterion by which to judge potential Featured Pictures; no such criterion appears anywhere on the instructions.  This picture provides an accurate and striking representation of the Sahara desert. --Andrew 21:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note particularly the image Image:PearlHarbor_Sm.jpg (already featured) which is a false-color composite image of a geographical region. (Much less striking in my opinion). --Andrew 21:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Good God, what have we done? --Andrew 21:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * We have done nothing. The desertification of Northern Africa is an entirely natural process, and is no more under our control than the glaciation of once-tropical Antarctica. Denni &#9775; 00:44, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
 * Upon further reading I see that the issue is certainly not as clear-cut as I thought it was. Oops.  This discussion doesn't belong here anyway, so I'll drop it. In any case, the image is certainly striking! --Andrew 02:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support I don't care how it was produced, the one question is : Does this pic illustrate particularly well the extent of the Sahara Desert. Answer YES! - Adrian Pingstone 22:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -Oh heavens it's "manufactured"! What exactly was he expecting, a handpainted watercolor by astronaut? It's a very good image.--Deglr6328 00:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- BRIAN 0918   02:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -So the picture is manufactured. So what? The machine that took the picture was manufactured. For that matter, so is the machine that we are all viewing it on. I don't see what the big deal is. TomStar81 09:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support False-color image does not negate the extent of desertification in north Africa. Denni &#9775;  21:05, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
 * Support. If it's a false-color image, that should be mentioned on the image page, and perhaps in the caption, but it in no way decreases the impact of the image on the article. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:14, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. James F. (talk) 23:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support OK, it's a false colour image... Note on the description page and some captions should be enough. WB 05:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * support --SPUI (talk) 08:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: An uncropped, immense (8460x8900) version of this image showing the whole of Africa is at commons:Image:Africa satellite plane.jpg. (There's a much smaller version at that name here, currently on IFD.) &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Promoted. +12/-1 -- brian0918  &#153;  23:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)