Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Comparison of Planet sizes

Comparison of planet sizes[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 02:46:20 (UTC)

Reason: Though not of the minimum size required, but highly encyclopaedic illustrating the sizes of the planets with good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Earth, List of examples of lengths, Solar System
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator: Lsmpascal

Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 02:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is no reason a comparison can't be made with proper resolution (we have tons of NASA images) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should the dwarf planets be included? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate what's going on here, but the image is just too soft and tiny and not very well done. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, doesn't cut it. Indefatigable2 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is no reason not to have a much higher resolution file that is much more sharp. Per Adam's comment, I would like the dwarf planters to be included since they are part of the solar system. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are only five of them (I didn't know), so I agree and think this is feasible and even interesting. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This sort of thing is better illustrated with a drawing that doesn't pretend to be anything else. This image, which appears to be digitally rendered with shadowing, artificial background, etc. just doesn't make sense to me. Why go through all that work to make it look like a photo of a plastic model? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]