Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High Resolution Solar Spectrum

High Resolution Solar Spectrum

Reason: This image is just incredible. Very Encyclopedic and eye-pleasing.
Articles this image appears in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
Creator: National Optical Astronomy Observatory/Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy/National Science Foundation
Nominator: PYMontpetit

Support — PYMontpetit 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Although there seems to be some jpeg artifacting, and I'd personally like it if it were at all possible to make all of the lines 100% clear, this is pretty encyclopedic and I like it very much. Joe 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Compression artifacts are minor and mitigated by the huge resolution. The vertical lines are supposed to be fuzzy: that is the width of the absorption line. —Dgies^t c 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
questions 1) is it a photo or an illustration? 2) for each row, is one end redder than the other, i.e. is is really just a one dimensional function of frequency, broken into several rows, or does the y-axis correspond to some measurement parameter? Debivort 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak support - what makes the image interesting (the absorption lines) is not what makes the image attractive (the simple spectrum). Plus, I think the breaking of it into rows (while reasonable) will confuse people, as it is not obvious which way the spectrum goes - right to left or left to right. I agree it should be downsampled for a final version. Debivort 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. It is a synthesized image taken from observational data. Sunlight is fed into a glorified prism and that produces a very detailed rainbow, which is then arranged in 40 or sow rows to fit in a nice rectangle.
2. For each row, left-to right represents increasing frequency (and subtle color change). The Y-axis is used to stack what would otherwise be an absurdly wide and short image into a more reasonable size. Going from top to bottom gives rows of increasing frequency. Ideally, each individual row would show no top-bottom variation, but there are artifacts. —Dgies^t c 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rad.--ragesoss 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks better when shrunk to my screen size than in actual size, where it looks like it's run through a motion blur. ~ trialsanderrors 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attractive and scientific. Neato. --Bridgecross 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High enc, and eyecatching color, for some reason... Could be downsampled to 50%, even 30%. --Janke | Talk 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Andrew c 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is generated by a scan or photo of an analog phenomenon, don't expect clarity --⁪froth^T 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- high quality, amazing, aesthetically pleasing, eye-catching, encyclopedic. Jorcoga Yell! 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything Jorcoga said, really. It's a great picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]