Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Sun by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly of NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory - 20100801.jpg

File:The Sun by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly of NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory - 20100801.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 16:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:The Sun by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly of NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory - 20100801.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Sun by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly of NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory - 20100801.jpg

•  Info created by NASA - uploaded by Jaharwell - nominated by One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Info I was going to nominate this for the first day of spring but just remembered to today.. Possible alternative or supplement (more striking but I thought it might be tad oversharpened-looking) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--MotherForker (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support-- Raghith (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Steven Walling 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Citron (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Somehow i dislike this image, since there is no exact definition how it was created. That way you can't even distinguish it from an CGI or if it is a composition with colorcorrections applied to make it look good, even if it is not scientific. --Niabot (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It was taken with AIA 304. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Oppose As thought, something wasn't right. At least the date is. --Niabot (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • ...The Sun is really bright. If certain filters aren't used you can't see anything except maybe just pure whiteness, if the severe light doesn't doesn't destroy the camera that is. -- 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I did not criticize that filters might be used. But for such an image it would be in best interest to know which filters where used, how it was composited and when the image was made. Otherwise it's a nice image of the sun, but nothing more, scientifically speaking. --Niabot (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
          • And now that you do you still oppose? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Im still opposing, since the date is not matched and there is no information on how the signals were mapped into the image. At least the color was added by hand and good will, since this image does no represent a "thermal scan". --Niabot (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Check the bottom of this nomination or the image and the link I just added 2 lines up. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
                • I agree with the date, but not with the fact that is not known which parts (ranges) are displayed to what extent. Which means they could and will have done anything to make it look good. But in this case it's nothing more then advertisement in its own interest. --Niabot (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • You may feel however you like, but it sounds like this most current oppose is based on a bad faith assumption on NASA that overlooks the fact that they made plenty of other images that look similarly to this one, including pictures taken as recently as today. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose No link to source page/image. The date is not correct.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if Jaharwell put the wrong date. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I looked at the images for 2010-08-01 and the neighboring ones and they are not similar to this image. You may use the link that I provided in my review to verify this.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • -gasp- Really? I get to search through 4100 pictures taken through several different settings over a year for one particular one showing a particular instance of the Sun being hot and fiery? You're just too kind. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        •  Support Thank you for correcting the date and linking to the source. That was extraordinary detective work. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Thank you. -- 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose until description problems are sorted out. --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done August 19, 2010, 00:32:21 UT, now leave me be about the date :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  CommentGood match with Aug 19. I've done the requested file rename. --99of9 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks! -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy