Support as nominator –
Artem.G (
talk) 18:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I'd prefer actual photos. Furthermore, this is an artist's impression of an astronaut's impression, so not first-hand info. --
Janke |
Talk 10:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a good semi-historic documentation of the event, and if we didn't have the infobox photo
[1], I would have supported. But I prefer the infobox photo (which is noisy at full size, but acceptable for 1974).
Bammesk (
talk) 04:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The photo is nice, but it doesn't show how it changed over time.
Artem.G (
talk) 13:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that the nom image is a good visual documentation of what happened, and is based on first hand observations (not unusual for 1974). It has good EV.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per previous three posts. Visual information not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. –
Sca (
talk) 13:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Artem.G (
talk) 18:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I'd prefer actual photos. Furthermore, this is an artist's impression of an astronaut's impression, so not first-hand info. --
Janke |
Talk 10:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a good semi-historic documentation of the event, and if we didn't have the infobox photo
[1], I would have supported. But I prefer the infobox photo (which is noisy at full size, but acceptable for 1974).
Bammesk (
talk) 04:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The photo is nice, but it doesn't show how it changed over time.
Artem.G (
talk) 13:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that the nom image is a good visual documentation of what happened, and is based on first hand observations (not unusual for 1974). It has good EV.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per previous three posts. Visual information not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. –
Sca (
talk) 13:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply