Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:WMAP 2008.png

Image:WMAP 2008.png - not featured

•  Info The Cosmic Microwave Background as seen by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Projected from full-sky using the Mollweide projection. Created by NASA / the WMAP Science Team (hence public domain). Uploaded by Gmaxwell, nominated by Mike Peel 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support. This is the best "baby picture" humanity has of the universe. Well worth framing and putting on the mantlepiece. Mike Peel 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, for the photographers: this picture is the result of 5 years' cumulative exposure on a camera with effectively 16 pixels continually being sampled, which have a resolution around 10 times worse than the human eye . While it does have a lens that is one and a half metres wide, the photons it is collecting have a wavelength of around 1-15 mm, about 2,000 times longer than visible light, making it an effective optical lens of about 0.75mm in width. The image is after subtracting off a baseline that is over a thousand times stronger than the signal. The camera cost a couple of billion dollars, and made a trip of over 1,500,000 kilometers to take the photo. Oh, and the image has been used to weigh the universe, and to calculate its age. Mike Peel 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Support This definitely needs to be featured. It is the definition of value like few other images imo. --Freedom to share 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really excellent scientific work, very impressive conditions and costs to produce a picture like this. And surely, the meaning for mankind is oustanding. I'm glad having such pictures in WM-Commons, but I think a FP should touch a viewer by itself and not by additional information. edit made by Taraxacum 14:37, 28 April (UTC) - Alvesgaspar 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forget to sign... --Taraxacum 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Must agree with Taraxacum. No doubt the picture took a huge amount of work and represents an important scientific achievement. But it is little more than a symbol of the actual results, which cannot obviously be all taken from the image (which is 2D and has a limited resolution). And, as a symbol, it is not particularly beautiful or meaningful by itself -- Alvesgaspar 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This is a great document, of a great quality. Not beautiful, but really useful. More images of the sort are really needed. Fred waldron 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. Barabas
•  Support FRZ 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support If scientific images are within the scope of FP, and I believe they are, then this image should defitiviely be featured. -- Klaus with K 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, wonderful. James F. (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Taraxacum. Masur 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. — Lycaon 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)