Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sphere

Sphere

 * Reason:High-res, sharp, encyclopedic
 * Proposed caption:An image of one of the most accurate spheres ever created by humans, as it refracts the image of Einstein in the background. This sphere was a fused quartz gyroscope for the Gravity Probe B experiment which differs in shape from a perfect sphere by no more than 40 atoms of thickness. It is thought that only neutron stars are smoother. It was announced on June 15, 2007 that Australian scientists are planning on making even more perfect spheres, accurate to 35 millionths of a millimeter, as part of an international hunt to find a new global standard kilogram.
 * Articles this image appears in:Sphere Gravity Probe B
 * Creator:NASA
 * Previous nomination: April 2006


 * Support as nominator Hadseys 14:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 14:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * comment in principle I could support this, but it looks really washed out, or fake sepia toned. Is a levels adjust in order? Debivort
 * comment well, the focus is the sphere. That they photographed it in front of a washed-out picture isn't in itself a problem, so long as it reflects reality. Adam Cuerden talk 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair point. On balance I find it striking and it draws me to the article. support. Debivort 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Adam Cuerden talk 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose nice image, but the context is too confusing. When I looked at the image I didn't know what the subject was. I had to read the caption to understand what this image was trying to show me. I guess the point is that with a less perfect sphere the refracted image would be more distorted? The sphere is too small to really tell how distorted the refracted image is. Mak (talk)  17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this has already gone through FPC and failed (nom'd by me). -Ravedave 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there some "this image failed FPC" template that could be added to images to prevent these kinds of re-noms? --TotoBaggins 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it failed then, it doesn necessarily mean it will again
 * See this discussion. Spikebrennan 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Background is confusing and distracting.  Spikebrennan 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it? The sphere was created by physics, the picture is of the master of physics. For it to be a perfect sphere it would need to regract something, it seems only fitting that the person is somebody considered to be one of the most intelligent men of all time
 * Please sign comments. The subject matter of the photo is supposed to be the sphere, yet most of the image space is dominated by a partial portrait of Einstein.  Spikebrennan 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; kind of ugly. Unencyclopedic. --John 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you draw the conclusion that its unencylopedic
 * Because I had to read the caption to see what it was a photo of. The sepia colouring is what I find ugly. Sorry. --John 03:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Eye-catching newspaper photograph, but not very encyclopedic. The extent to which it illustrates the "perfection" of the sphere is not clear, and the framing is odd. You have to look at it to figure out what it's illustrating. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I held off on voting because I was unsure.  Reasoning: There is nothing in the image to indicate the sphere is close to perfect.  It could be any glass ball on a stick.  Therefore, it doesn't have enc value to its article, merely mild cute enc value.  Zakolantern 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per all above, 8thstar 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting subject, but I don't feel this photo is the best way to illustrate it for WP's purposes. --Peter 03:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 09:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)