Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Nasa EV Lacertae 250408.jpg

Image:Nasa EV Lacertae 250408.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by NASA, uploaded by Kimse and nominated by George -- Georgeok (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• 2 points: --S23678 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Needs better categorization (it's not the sun, it's another star).
•  Question This is an awsome illustration from NASA, as almost all NASA illustrations. As of now, no Nasa illustration is FP from what I can see. I am wondering if we want to start voting for those images as Nasa has litterally hundreds of such illustrations: robots on mars, satelites, future projects, etc. Should such works of art be notable or of great value in addition of being beautiful? After all, this is the artist's conception of an event (with some personal input such as the blue flames that may not be a real representation), not a picture of the real event itself. If we vote for this one, are we creating a precedent to every illustration that is "simply beautiful"?

•  Info From the Guidelines: "beautiful does not always mean valuable". ( Neutral) -- Korax1214 (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Value... I think there's too much of the artist's personal input. --S23678 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --Eagle01 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Vote of blocked user struck. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Econt (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Sebman81 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I drew some great pictures while in Junior High School, I would expect them to be opposed if nominated here also. -- carol (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per S23678. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I think this is a very good image: thoroughly informative, and incredibly impressive.--Simba123 (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Vote of blocked user struck. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As MichaelMaggs. --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support As Simba123--Reflection of Perfection (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Is it technically accurate? Given that practically all images of sun activity are false colour, I can forgive the mixing of yellow and blue - they could represent long- and short-wave UV. Looking at this, this and these images of the Sun and up-rating the intensity of sunspot and CME activity (the point of the image) everything is feasible, except for the blue rays. Although I am no expert, none of the sun images I have seen have an equivalent, and it looks like it's there purely for Wow factor, which reduces the value of the image to 'just pretty'. Pity, the rest is fantastic. If there is a physical equivalent to 'the Blu-ray effect', I'll support. Dhatfield (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose IMO, this is not a best scientific representation. It is the artist's glorification of a phenomenon in the absence of a genuine photograph. This image is beautiful and should compete in a purely artistic competition, but it doesn't have good educational value. --Specious (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)