Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Interplanetary Superhighway

Interplanetary Superhighway

This is one of the very best examples I have found that fulfills the dual requirements of adding significantly to an article while also catching the eye. Linked to Interplanetary Transport Network.

Nominate and support. - Jeeb 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Resolution is on the low side, sure you can't find a better one on NASA's site? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Eye catching, yes. But otherwise this image is unencyclopaedic and confusing at best. An actual diagram of orbits would be far more valuable. This is like many of those Artsists impressions, pretty, but not related to the physics of the subject. Wiggely tubes, planets completely out of scale, no concept of orbits whatsoever in the image. Not featureworthy. --Dschwen 01:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Dschwen. Not useful, accurate or insightful enough to add significantly to the article as a featured picture should do. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To be really honest the image is really cool, but I don't think the average person can undesrtand what it is trying to illustrate. I tried reading the article, but all it talks about is about a bunch of points, and coordinates. All I see is a drawing of the solar system in a really artistic fashion and not something that adds to my understanding of anything.Nnfolz 14:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm totally confused by this and the article doesn't help. I can't tell where the center of the system is supposed to be and the planets don't seem to be arranged in the standard order. Visually it isn't bad (it is as good as most of the NASA "artist renditions" are in terms of its artistic qualities) but conceptually it is very confused and very confusing. I suspect it was drawn by someone who did not understand it either, and was trying to just maximize the "cool" effect. --Fastfission 01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not notable and will be hard for people viewing the front page to understand. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ~~Even besides the encyclopedic value, the image is too small~~ (per above). --Tewy 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a bit informative, planets look horrible and inaccurate (I'm ready to oppose any illustration that shows Saturn as a perfect sphere). Cheap render look hurts.--JyriL ^talk 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not sure how Jyril can determine that Saturn is being depicted as a perfect sphere at that resolution -- it's less than 10% oblate in reality, which makes for only a few pixel difference in this image, easily masked by the rings and ribbon/tubes. I also disagree that it isn't "a bit" informative -- in fact, it helps illustrate a difficult concept somewhat. The problem is the "somewhat." It's more artistic than technical, and (as others have mentioned) the accuracy of the depiction suffers -- the orbits don't have to be absolutely to scale (imagine the image size if they were), but some reference should be made to clarify that point. -- Moondigger 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen Jam01 07:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not encyclopedic. Nice pic though HighInBC 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very Interesting Rendition but needs a lot of work Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand that the image and its associated article were not particularly clear. To address this, I have significantly revised the picture caption along with the Interplanetary Transport Network article, and will resubmit the revised version. Please have a look at the revised article/caption to see if the concept is clear. Also, comments such as "not a bit informative" are out of line and indicate that no effort was made to understand the concept involved. Jeeb 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]