Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arctic Shrinkage

Arctic Shrinkage

Reason: stunning and informative
Articles this image appears in: Global warming controversy, Northwest Passage, North Pole, Arctic, Open Polar Sea, Polar ice packs, Arctic shrinkage
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator. Ferrylodge (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, this is informative, but please check the criteria (Criterion 2). This is only about half the recommended minimum, and contains nothing that could not be relatively easily reproduced. SVGs are usually the preferred format for this type of image (in which case the size would not be such an issue). --jjron (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by jjron. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 03:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the featured picture nomination that I submitted. I never nominated a picture before. Could you please tell me whether the original NASA picture has enough pixels, and if so can it be uploaded to Wikipedia/Wikimedia without losing the pixels? The original NASA picture is here. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original NASA image is just a satellite view of the north pole, nothing about Arctic Shrinkage --⁪ffroth 07:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two NASA imagesx: the marked-up image, and also a raw image. Can someone more knowledgeable in these matters tell me whether the marked-up NASA image and/or the raw NASA image has enough pixels to qualify as a Wikipedia featured picture? I have no idea. If only the raw image has enough pixels, then perhaps it could be marked up by a Wikipedian while maintaining the picture quality, right? Thanks, and I apologize for my ignorance in matters photographic.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, we're running into one another all over. To answer your question, neither do. You'll need a much higher-resolution image of the area in question for this to pass, in my opinion — it's a good image, but too small. --Haemo (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks again Haemo. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per JjronClegs (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As noted, there are two different NASA images provided. First, allow me to rebutt some of the arguments given above against the nomination of this image. The web size (540 x 405 image) is on the Earth Observatory web site with its accompanying caption. Linked from that page, and cited above, is a "large image format" showing the sea ice extent without the annotations (GIS shapefiles marking previous sea ice minimum extents). In this instance, the name "large image" is potentially misleading insofar as the large image is large only in the sense of having more area included in the image. Both the web size and large images are at the full resolution of the satellite sensor instrument, named 12.5 km per pixel which includes the entire Arctic Ocean in a 540 x 405 size image. In other words, short of a totally new technology for monitoring sea ice, this is as good as it gets. I believe the compelling nature of the image and its unique character and informativeness, potentially qualifies it for consideration under the exceptions provided in Category 2 for images of less than 1000 pixel width resolution. (Disclaimer: AMSR-E actually collects 6.25 km resolution data in several different microwave channels, so a visualization sort of like this could be and has been done with brightness temperature data alone to get higher resolution, but it is not sea ice concentration but a loose proxy thereof, and nowhere near as attractive a visualization.) (Disclaimer 2: I am not the original nominator of this image, but I am the image author.). Now why I support the image, as opposed to why I oppose the opposition. The web image with GIS layers (sure, "it could be easily reproduced": to date the other visualizations of sea ice extent and/or sea ice concentration (see work by the Science Visualization Studio, for example) do not, in my highly biased opinion (See Disclaimer 2 above), show it as well and as cleanly and clearly. I have not see others doing this so well.) conveys the central point elegantly and clearly: the sea ice minimum this past year was remarkably smaller in overall extent than any previous such recorded minimum. The visual does this well and without requiring reference to the caption (itself quite fine, and no, I was not the author of that text). Any person can look at the image and immediately get the message and information of the data. A more sophisticated and knowlegable person can look at the patterns and changes quickly and easily. The overall graphics and image quality is clean, crisp, and informative. I believe this merits consideration as a Featured Picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsallen1303 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most people agree that it is a good picture. However, our guidelines indicate that we need pictures to be a minimum of 1000px on at least one side. The image which is centrally composed is about half this size — in my opinion, it's just too small. There are also technical problems with the picture — including noticeable and distracting jpeg artifacting. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution criteron states "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." My argument was to the effect that the image merits consideration based on the uniqueness standard. I seem to be in the minority. A TIFF format could be made available if that is the sole stumbling issue, but since it is not standard for display on the web, it's not what the Earth Observatory site provides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsallen1303 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like a very unique image, and historical too. It blew me away. I hope there might be some way to improve it or otherwise move it into featured status.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "unique and historical" refer to images which cannot be reproduced nowadays — for instance, the image of FDR, Stalin and Churchill at the Yalta Conference might fail size requirements, but still be nominated because it is a unique, historical image. This could very easily be reproduced in a higher resolution using the original images and data, without jpeg artifacting. The artifacts alone are enough to sink it, quite frankly. --Haemo (talk)

It's not an issue of providing it in TIFF - it's not the file size that's the issue, it's the image size. I actually thought this was a diagram, rather than an annotated photograph which Jsallen1303 seems to be saying it is; that is why I made the original comment about these being better as SVGs. It seems to me however that a vector illustration could easily illustrate this information and be just as convincing, as Jeff Dahl also states below, thus removing the issue of size. Therefore, because it could be easily be reproduced in another (better) format, that rather negates the "unique" argument - it may not exist in those formats yet, but easily could with no loss of historical value, and then be more useful. That's not the case for historical photos (which in my opinion are allowed too many 'excuses' by many voters anyway). --jjron (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No reason not to have vector version. Just because it's important and informative doesn't mean we should blindly abandon size/quality requirements; just compare to recently featured vector maps for comparison. I also question how the data have been selected, why is there a 21 year median and then pull out two years (2005, 2007) and ignore 2006? Examining every year's data (rather than conveniently selected data) may reveal thaxt the scare-graphic isn't quite as scary as it would seem. The only way to tell whether this is true is to actually look at all the information, something we can't do in this image. But no matter what the data, quality/size is way too low and the map is really not that unique. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It also doesn't show the Antarctic, which is both cooling and gaining ice.[1] The term "scare-graphic" seems to fit well. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows what it shows. How you react is your business. The fact is, the Arctic Ocean has not been ice-free in more than a million years, but will be very soon at this rate. If the same thing happens to the huge glaciers on Greenland, then there may be a significant impact on sea level.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the comment - there's not many other images here getting knocked because they don't show Antarctica. As Ferry says, it shows what it shows - there's no reason it should show Antarctica. --jjron (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't being used in Global Warming articles, I would agree. Criteria 8 says featured pictures must be neutral. In the context in which it is used, it is strongly aligned with one side of a huge political debate. The image could be perfect and 4000 pixels wide, and it still shouldn't be featured, because it is a polemic. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why is the caption in French? If it is changed to English I will reconsider my vote, but also per the above. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator, but not the uploader, so I don't know why a French-language version was used. There is an English-language version here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]