Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pioneer plaque
- Reason
- It is a historical image showing a picture which was included in Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft. Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft which traveled through the asteroid belt, which it entered on July 15th 1972. It was also the first spacecraft which made first direct observation of Jupiter. Pioneer 11 was also build for observation of outer solar system. Due to the long range of these two spacecraft, these plaque was included on them, so that in case of any encounter with extraterrestrial life-form, they can know about human on Earth. So I am nomiting this historically significant image for FAC.
- Articles this image appears in
- Pioneer plaque
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support I don't have a real reason to oppose. However, it doesn't have the extreme 'wow factor' that other FPs have, so I weakly support. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what do you mean by 'wow factor'. This image is historically significant. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- What I mean is, while there is no strong reason for me to dislike the image, I don't look at it and say "Wow, this is a good image!". Juliancolton (Talk) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The photo of the actual plaque is already a featured picture. Edited versions were proposed at the time, but there was a clear preference for the original photograph, for historical significance. I suppose it wouldn't be impossible for the SVG to be promoted as well, to reflect the good work that has gone into the SVG conversion, but basically there is already an FP of this. 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, redundant of existing FP. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Spikebrennan. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Spike. --Janke | Talk 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose this image was proposed before and not accepted for being redundant. It's still redundant now. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)