Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Saturn V Rocket

The Apollo 4 Saturn V rocket

 * Reason:This image is very eye catching and contains a beautiful background.
 * Articles this image appears in:
 * 1) Saturn V,
 * 2) Spaceflight,
 * 3) Apollo 4,
 * 4) Arthur Rudolph,
 * 5) Megaproject
 * Creator:NASA


 * Support as nominator --The Emperor561 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain until the spots and scratches in the sky are fixed. (Also: Blown highlights... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivial to re-shoot. ;) At first I thought it was already featured, but after a quick hunt, I realised it was this one that was featured. I also note that it is no longer used in the article, which is a bit unfortunate because there are no other images of the launch either. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already have essentially the same FP, plus the moon is so fake in this picture. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this image was put up as a cadidate awhile ago and rejected for having the moon artifilcially put in. victorrocha (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Fake moon and the fact that we already have a FP that is almost the same as this. --Mifter (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Not only is there a fake moon in the shot, but the fake moon is the worst fake I have every seen. Capital photographer (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The background has many problems with spots and scratches, which greatly reduces the eye-candy when viewing at fullsize. (Note: this changes in a strong oppose if victorrocha's comment turns out to be true) Fransw (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * edit: Changed to strong oppose after reading the picture's description. The moon was indeed added later. Fransw (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Fake moon. The image looks like something off of the back of a 1990s Lego box. (I'd also add that fake moons tend to demonstrate people's general ignorance. They think the moon is a pretty thing, but they never actually look up.) TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fake moon ruins the enc. (do i recall reading that this moon position is completely incorrect for the time of shot which is inexcusable for NASA of all people.) Mfield (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes you wonder what else they faked on this mission ;) Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose.
 * Is NOT of a high technical standard. Not sure about being an exception, it's potentially historical/unique but impossibility of technically superior image is unclear.
 * Meets minimum requirements for resolution, but not great. Again not sure about exception.
 * Wikipedia's best work? IMO not.
 * While somewhat pretty, doesn't add much to the articles it appears in.
 * Is not accurate
 * Based on the article, and the note (which describes potential errors in the description about direction, timing, and addition of a full moon which should have been a quarter moon). See http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php and enter November 9th, 1967 at Merritt Island, Florida. The moon was added in the incorrect phase, and either it was in the incorrect direction relative to the rocket or the image was altered and it was taken at sunset not sunrise. The later would then require that "USA", "United States", and the American Flags would have been flipped.  Based on other photos it appears to be in the original orientation, but the moon is added.
 * The caption is cluttered and possibly inaccurate.
 * Digital Manipulation is questionable. The problems seem to have come from it's source in NASA and not editing by wikipedians, so does this apply? More over it requires much manipulation to overcome issues of technical quality.Dwayne Reed (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I call WP:Snowball and I claim my five pounds. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)