- Reason
- quality and natural vision to Moon, no view to NASA
- Articles this image appears in
- Moon
- Creator
- Luc Viatour
- Support as nominator Luc Viatour ( talk) 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lighting is bad :3 :D\=< ( talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I actually like the lighting and think that is a good photo. The definition of the craters are really nice.-- CPacker ( talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing against having more than one FP on a topic, but for those interested, our other moon FPs include an animation showing libration, a full moon shot by the same photographer, and a (somewhat related) eclipse sequence by Fir. Personally, I'll go with a weak oppose, but only because the full moon shot is so good. Matt Deres ( talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- SupportThe craters are seen much better, when the Moon is not full-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- True, but only for the bit of moon that's lit and even the full moon will show crater details at the edges (as our FP does). Also, as per Kaldari, the subject is cut off. While you and I know that the deep shade on the left really wouldn't have any details anyway, the position of the subject seems to follow the cartoon idea that the crescent moon is really a crescent (and not an apparent crescent due to the angle of illumination).
Matt Deres (
talk)
20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right about cartoon, but IMO it might be impossible to show half Moon in such details together with the Eartshine.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, but only for the bit of moon that's lit and even the full moon will show crater details at the edges (as our FP does). Also, as per Kaldari, the subject is cut off. While you and I know that the deep shade on the left really wouldn't have any details anyway, the position of the subject seems to follow the cartoon idea that the crescent moon is really a crescent (and not an apparent crescent due to the angle of illumination).
Matt Deres (
talk)
20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. I would prefer if the image weren't so tightly cropped on the left. Kaldari ( talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I hate to oppose such a nice photo, but it doesn't really add anything to the article. There are shots of craters on the page already, and I agree the full moon shot is good enough. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Would this do better in Lunar phase? There's a crescent moon pic in there already, but no half moon shot. howcheng { chat} 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it might be a good addition to the article IMO.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose Cropped on the left. It may be possible to clone in some blackness and fix this.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk)
19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is that possible? We might need some serious panorama stiching-wizards in here. Diliff? :D\=< ( talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- quality and natural vision to Moon, no view to NASA
- Articles this image appears in
- Moon
- Creator
- Luc Viatour
- Support as nominator Luc Viatour ( talk) 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lighting is bad :3 :D\=< ( talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I actually like the lighting and think that is a good photo. The definition of the craters are really nice.-- CPacker ( talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing against having more than one FP on a topic, but for those interested, our other moon FPs include an animation showing libration, a full moon shot by the same photographer, and a (somewhat related) eclipse sequence by Fir. Personally, I'll go with a weak oppose, but only because the full moon shot is so good. Matt Deres ( talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- SupportThe craters are seen much better, when the Moon is not full-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- True, but only for the bit of moon that's lit and even the full moon will show crater details at the edges (as our FP does). Also, as per Kaldari, the subject is cut off. While you and I know that the deep shade on the left really wouldn't have any details anyway, the position of the subject seems to follow the cartoon idea that the crescent moon is really a crescent (and not an apparent crescent due to the angle of illumination).
Matt Deres (
talk)
20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right about cartoon, but IMO it might be impossible to show half Moon in such details together with the Eartshine.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, but only for the bit of moon that's lit and even the full moon will show crater details at the edges (as our FP does). Also, as per Kaldari, the subject is cut off. While you and I know that the deep shade on the left really wouldn't have any details anyway, the position of the subject seems to follow the cartoon idea that the crescent moon is really a crescent (and not an apparent crescent due to the angle of illumination).
Matt Deres (
talk)
20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. I would prefer if the image weren't so tightly cropped on the left. Kaldari ( talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I hate to oppose such a nice photo, but it doesn't really add anything to the article. There are shots of craters on the page already, and I agree the full moon shot is good enough. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Would this do better in Lunar phase? There's a crescent moon pic in there already, but no half moon shot. howcheng { chat} 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it might be a good addition to the article IMO.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose Cropped on the left. It may be possible to clone in some blackness and fix this.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk)
19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is that possible? We might need some serious panorama stiching-wizards in here. Diliff? :D\=< ( talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)