Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Terrestrial planet size comparisons

Terrestrial planet size comparisons

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars

Yet another NASA image, I'm afraid, but this is elegant, beautiful, and does exactly what it says on the tin. Used in Venus, Mars and Mercury (planet).

Nominate and support. - Henry ^Flower 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak support It's a nice image but it's a bit plain, that's NASA for you though. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Could be bigger, but otherwise the image is both useful and attractive. bcasterline t 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I like space but this really isn't featured picture material. If it was a picture of a landform on a particular planet or a picture of a planet than I'd support it. -- BWF89 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Relatively low res. Captions would be usefull for those not astronomically inclined. --Fir0002 www 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It isn't realistic. --Nrainer 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? The planets' sizes seem to be in the right proportion -- and I don't think NASA would get it wrong. bcasterline t 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I prefer [1], which shows all the commonly accepted planets. It seems to me that the most important point to be made about planet sizes is just how small the rocky planets are relative to the gas giants (let alone the sun). Redquark 21:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support What I understood was that this picture focuses mainly on the terrestrial planets, not the gas giants. In that context, I believe this picture works very well and has a strong encyclopedia value.--Jonthecheet 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I agree, the rocky planets are quite hard to distinguish on the full solar-system comparison, so this picture definitely has value. It might be nice if Pluto was included as well, but it's not terribly important. vasi 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely shows the "rocky" planets. Could be larger, of course... --Janke | Talk 17:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. JQF 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not striking, doesn't really convey as much information as I'd hope for a featured picture. Night Gyr 03:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What information is lacking? Perhaps the caption needs expansion, as Fir suggested, in which case this is a fixable problem. bcasterline t 16:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It just feels really pedestrian. I've seen so many diagrams to convey this same size comparison in books about the solar system that it doesn't feel special. As far as information, a featured picture is supposed to convey a thousand words, but this one could be translated into four numbers. Night Gyr 22:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I hate to be a killjoy, but I agree that this image just doesn't convey very much information. I don't see how this adds significantly to any articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 7/4/1 no concensus ~ Veledan • Talk 11:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]