Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Whole world - land and oceans

Whole world - land and oceans


Great image. I don't think i really need to say much.


 * Nominate and support. - Nnfolz 06:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nice and a very useful image, an important contrbution to WP Bjrobinson 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Wow. Encyclopedic, high resolution, pleasing to the eye, sharp. This image meets every requirement from What is a featured picture?. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Pharaoh Hound. Comment: Any description should note that the image uses the Plate carrée projection. (I think) --Billpg 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. A fine example of a featured pic.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support - edit 1 Wonderfull, encyclopedic, and neat, not a map but a photograph. HighInBC 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Me gusta!  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme 
 * Oppose. All the landforms are surrounded by artefacts. --Oldak Quill 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The artifacts disappear when scaled down to any resonable resolution. A huge JPEG with artifacts is better than a small JPEG with no artifacts. I support. —Keenan Pepper 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The high resolution is excellent for this type of picture, and I agree with Billpg that the Plate carrée projection note should be included with it. -- Tewy  06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support wow Ch ild zy  ( Talk 12:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I cannot vote at this time as I'm unable to download the large version. Anyone else having problems? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It took ages to download on my computer (with high-speed). But it loaded eventually. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support amazing resolution; I can almost see my house in this! (well... kind of...) smurrayinch e  ster( User ), ( Talk ) 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Well done, this is really a very fine map!!!! nice work Jam01 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I would strongly support a different format, as there is some coastal artefacting. With that aside, this is a wonderful picture, and I think its the largest I've seen on Wikipedia! Very well done - Jack (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, there seems to be something wrong with the Severnaya Zemlya Islands just off the north coast of Russia - Jack (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could it be the normal distortion that comes along with the projection?Nnfolz 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Possible, but then that would not explain the misterious black square coating the ocean around Enderby Land in Antarctica. While searching for a map for that article, I found Image:Antarctica satellite orthographic.jpg, which also has the black square. Is that really there, or is a a fault? - Jack (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, it could just be from a lack of information, or an area that changes a lot, if anyone wants my opinion (I really can't say why that's there). -- Tewy  20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Amazing. --Fir0002 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support unbelieveable. -- Samir   धर्म 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It's impossible to fault NASA's photographic sense. --Marumari 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. - Darwinek 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support If this is not a Featured Picture, then what is a Featured Picture? This is an amazing photo made by NASA. It's just the perfect choice. Arad 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I notice this was scaled down for an 8meg limit from the original NASA tifs. I think the current limit is 20megs now right? I will see if I can make a new copy perhaps in png or a higher res, that is if my computer can even handle those huge tifs(640mb total). I am about to leave for Toronto so if I cannot do it today I won't be back for a week. HighInBC 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added a version that is about 2.45x bigger than the previous, reflecting the new limit of 20megs compared to the old of 8megs. HighInBC 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - I noticed in the RAW version that since it is a photograph you can see through the water in shallow areas. This create a fuzzy boarder that looks like jpg artifacts. In the larger version it looks less like jpg artifacts and more like shallow water(imo). HighInBC 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - Darn it, I can't download the larger version. Anyone else have the same problem? - Jack (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Browsers are not meant to deal with huge images like this, save the link and view it in a proper image viewing program, GIMP is a good free one. HighInBC 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

. I'll leave the link to the smaller version in case the big one is too big for anyone's computers. Raven4x4x 00:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)