Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG

• Comment. Since Wikipedia is a place of learning, I thought many who voted “support” on this one would like to know about the
  Solar storm of 1859, also known as the “Richard Carrington flare.” It was a coronal mass ejection that was a once-in-a-thousand-year event. Notwithstanding the rarity of such an event, Richard Carrington, a solar astronomer, happen to be mapping the very sunspot that produced the flare. He was making measurements using an 11-inch projected image on a white-topped mapping table when the white-light eruption burst forth with blinding intensity. According to our own Wikipedia article, the next day, “Aurorae were seen around the world, most notably over the Caribbean; also noteworthy were those over the Rocky Mountains that were so bright, the glow awoke gold miners, who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning.” More about Carrington’s Sept. 1, 1859 super-flare is available here at NASA’s A Super Solar Flare. That article speaks of how “Just before dawn the next day, skies all over planet Earth erupted in red, green, and purple auroras so brilliant that newspapers could be read as easily as in daylight.” It also tells of how “telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.” Greg L (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. Oh, BTW, my 88-year-old mother was born in 1922. She lived in an old mining town that had wooden sidewalks and a single, dirt road through town. Mail in the winter came by horse-drawn sleigh once a week. When she was six years old, there were several old men in their early 80s who lived in cabins on the edge of town. They had come to north Idaho to escape being drafted into the Civil War. My own mother met men who might well have witnessed the Solar Storm Of 1859. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support original upstateNYer says it best - stunning Gazhiley (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral Important image for sure, but not very good quality at full scale. All versions are too fuzzy, maybe just reduced size image instead? Nice, but irrelevant, story Greg. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. That’s because it was supposed to be a nice but irrelevant (off on a related tangent irrespective of voting) story. ;-) Greg L (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IdLoveOne, you've said that elsewhere as well. That's simply not a valid argument- we do not downsample simply so something looks higher quality. J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just a suggestion because I do want to support this, but with the graininess as it is I just don't feel this is one of the best images on Wikipedia. We've got plenty of images as astounding as this that were even harder to get and make and in higher quality, therefore I don't support these candidate images - As is, but that's my minor opinion and everyone else sees it differently than I do anyhow. This is a great image, so I guess it'll still be nice to see one of these get FP. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WTF. How is the 12 image of a fully illustrated article great EV and images that are the main image of multiple articles not high EV?--
  WP:FOUR) 04:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This is maybe why you are having issues with FPC editors - EV isn't just based on whether it is the main or indeed only picture in an article. it's whether that picture tells you what you need to know about the subject... This is a great and pretty much unique angle of the Aurora Australis and as such has high EV in an article that as you pointed out has 12 other images... Having the other images there does not reduce this picture's EV... The pictures you spam across multiple articles have low EV for their placements as the pictures usually have no bearing to the article other than co-incidence or "say so"... For example your sports centre picture the other day... Saying it should go in
    Aurora (astronomy) article, this picture has high EV as it actually shows the topic of the article... Gazhiley (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I agree 100%. We’ve all seen a gazillion pictures of the aurora from ground. Seeing one from this vantage point (like the ISS was going to fly right over the top of it) is an exceedingly rare privilege. This is a truly amazing image that provides insight into the large-scale structure of aurora that one can only imagine from an earth-bound point of view. Greg L (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - the noise only adds to the amazing piece of art that this picture is. - Negative Twoth —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Support per above.
  talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose I know that there is a really big snow ball above me, but I don't find this image inspiring. While naturally wondrous, it lacking in clarity. Gut Monk (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I get that the quality isn't omg!brilliant, but this is an incredibly rare image and the fact we have it at all makes the EV very, very high. I prefer the original for the colour quality, but either works. Amphy (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the edit vs. the original, please. Which do we prefer? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Original Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Either, with a preference for the noise-cleaned one. I think it actually makes it easier to recognize cloud features. It certainly doesn’t make anything worse. Greg L (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit I'll repeat my arguments from earlier: Edit looks heavily artefacted and obscures the fact that these are glowing ions hopping about. Same camera, same ISO convinces me that the "noise" is in fact the phenomenon for which EV is being claimed. another sample from an independent source Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the same exposure time? And the same lighting conditions? No. Both are factor in producing noise. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond the ISO rating, it's mostly heat through incident light that causes noise; arguably, if the exposure is the same for two images, exposure time shouldn't matter much. I haven't heard any proper reply to my hypothesis that the scatter is caused by uneven distribution of the actual ions that cause the aurora. I think that's the main point here in terms of EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The noise appears to be uniformly distributed across the image and it was dark enough that the camera had to be set at ISO 6400. So, in my opinion, the noise is just from the usual sources,
        talk) 08:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Original I would support the original over the edit, since the edit does loose some image detail. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Original over edit. Color quality's better IMO. Amphy (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Close, but the original has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]