Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mars

Mars

Reason: Beautiful image; I'm surprised it's not already featured. Used in dozens of articles, and the subject is extremely notable.
Articles this image appears in: Mars, Portal:Mars, Template:Mars, and many others
Creator: NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

Support as nominator -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we already have a picture of Mars featured, but it's the other side of the planet. MER-C 12:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's nice enough at thumbnail size, but picture quality at fullsize is quite frankly terrible. I would guess this has been substantially upsampled, which could explain the pixellation. Even a 50% downsample (which leaves it just above minimum size limits) is of poor quality. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per above. Hubble is fantastic, but it can't compete with planetary images taken from Mars' orbit. Curious; the currently featured pic is from the Viking program, decades old. We have new orbiters around Mars now, are there not even better available now?--Bridgecross (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but the crop is far too tight --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also oppose, but I find your reason odd. A wider crop would just show more empty space, and the current Feature Picture (as shown) has an even tighter crop! It's the first one we are voting on, the second photo is already an FP. --Bridgecross (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Strong oppose. Looks really, really, really bad. Like our smudge-picture of Pluto. --⁪ffroth 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, simply too unsharp. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The original FP for Mars seems to be good as it is. --Shark face 217 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Appears to be upsampled some 300 or 400 %... --Janke | Talk 09:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Looks nice. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aitias, did you look at the original (i.e. the real candidate) in full size, i.e. 2,400 × 2,164 pixels? You always need to do that... --Janke | Talk 13:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Janke, of course I have. But I like the picture in the overall impression. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I won't join the bashing but will suffice it to say that the current Mars FP is much closer to the best Wikipedia has to offer than the current candidate. Cat-five - talk 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is substandard, and it's particularly noticeable at fullsize. Chris.B (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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