Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 22:42:03
Info What the original reviewers apparently didn't know (because the file description[s] didn't have this information): It is a composite image. And a deceiving one at that: We see a normal, colour image of Saturn with ultraviolet aurora in false-colour overlaid on it. The colourful, nice-looking image conceals the fact that we don't know colours of aurorae on Saturn yet. (Original nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanmap (talk • contribs) --DXR (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am by no means an expert on astronomy, but your exact complaint is disclosed in the, admittedly German, description. --DXR (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It states, loosely translated : Composite image of an shot of Saturn taken on March 22, 2004 with a false color image of UV polarlight taken January 24, overlaid. --DXR (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Edit: It actually has an English description that states that, so I honestly do not see how that would be deceiving. --DXR (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAt the time of FP candidacy the description read:
Comment First, please don't forget to sign your comments. Second, I highly doubt that many people here are motivated to delist a photo due to issues that do no longer exist. --DXR (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDon't you think it is important to know what you're looking at in order to do a valid review of an image? I think especially with this picture knowledge is important to get anything from it. So the question im asking here is: Do people still think it is a worthy featured picture when they have the facts in mind? Imagine it was "just" a painting? Or would we rather prefer something more honest - that arguably even uses the false colours for some useful purpose like the one to the right? - I'm not trying to lobby against the picture. If the standards for FP still cover this I'm fine with that.
Issues that might still exist in my opinion are: You have to be told beforehand what you are looking at in order to not be fooled. And then it's more or less just nice-looking.--Scanmap (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, yet this is the FP section of Commons (and not en.wiki and not COM:VIC) where the relationship between encyclopedia and esthetics is rather skewed towards the second. While I agree that it wasn't ideal to nominate an image that wasn't described well enough, I do not think that the image in its current form including a decent description is unworthy of FP status. I do indeed think that viewers can be expected to read a description, that's why they are there after all.
It is unfortunate that the image linked here is slightly small and unsharp, otherwise I would have suggested a nomination here. You are obviously very free to nominate an image you consider better or more suited, but I personally feel that an current FP must have larger flaws than the ones pointed out by you in order to be delisted. --DXR (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info What the original reviewers apparently didn't know (because the file description[s] didn't have this information): It is a composite image. And a deceiving one at that: We see a normal, colour image of Saturn with ultraviolet aurora in false-colour overlaid on it. The colourful, nice-looking image conceals the fact that we don't know colours of aurorae on Saturn yet. (Original nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanmap (talk • contribs) --DXR (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep I am by no means an expert on astronomy, but your exact complaint is disclosed in the, admittedly German, description. --DXR (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment It states, loosely translated : Composite image of an shot of Saturn taken on March 22, 2004 with a false color image of UV polarlight taken January 24, overlaid. --DXR (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Edit: It actually has an English description that states that, so I honestly do not see how that would be deceiving. --DXR (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
,_kept){kind=link}
,_kept){kind=link}
