Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg

File:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2010 at 15:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg

•  Info created by NASA - uploaded by Lokal Profil - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• I don't quite see the point of nominating all these space agency pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - incomplete photo with black at top right - MPF (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I know a lot is missing, but there's not much that can be done about it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Sure there is, they just have to point the telescope up and to the right ;-). --99of9 (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - agree with with MPF Scewing (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- One of the most famous and culturally influential photographs in the history of astronomy, in fact I am very surprised it isn't already an FP. Opposing because of the black squares is a bit silly - this is FP based on the Value ("our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others.)" of the picture first and foremost, this is not QIC, and nor can the inferred deficiencies be overcome by any reasonable means (nobody here is going to launch a space telescope). SFC9394 (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pir6mon (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - would support if the description would explain the missing parts (please let me know when such an explanation is added so I can consider re-voting). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've told Piotrus at his en wiki talk page that I've added such an explanation. --Avenue (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The voting has ended, but I'd support the image in a new round (if the template Information was added). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Iconic image; It's nto infrequent, given limited telescope time and long exposures, for NASA to concentrate on the most "interesting" parts, leaving black gaps that mean it's not square. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose för mycket av bilden fattas /Ö 21:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Strong support Iconic historical image; see w:Pillars of Creation. This picture and the Deep Field image are probably the most famous Hubble pics; most space agency pictures do not have their own Wikipedia articles. The comments above that focus solely on the black squares seem to me to miss the point. (FWIW, the black parts are due to the design of the instrument, and are explained in that article. I have now copied this explanation into the image description page.) --Avenue (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)