Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canis Majoris

Sun and VY Canis Majoris

Reason: "If our sun were replaced with such a star, its surface could extend to the orbit of Saturn." That pretty much sums it up. Fascinating! Especially after an appreciation of just how massive the sun is, and the staggering volume within saturn's orbit.
Articles this image appears in: VY Canis Majoris
Creator: User:WindAzure (png)
User:Mysid (svg)

Support as nominator ⁪froth^t 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, I didn't imagine there could exist stars that large: the stats are truly staggering. But I dont see how the image contributes to the article: it adds nothing that isn't already summed up verbally in the second sentence "the radius of VY CMa is between 1800 and 2100 solar radii". I don't see that the image itself adds anything to the article at all. ~ Veledan • T 03:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many people can't translate words into images in their heads; poor imagination if you will.--Svetovid 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support--Mbz1 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Support SVG Wow, that's a big star.--Here T oHelp 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVG I don't understand the size at all - think you can stick a person in for scale? :) thegreen J Are you green? 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He'll be a pixel if the image was blown up to be the size of a billboard. The earth might be a pixel if the image was the size of a large poster.--HereToHelp 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I want a quark for scale. ;) Jumping cheese 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If all I had nominated was the SVG, would you still be awed by the star's size? I think the effect is greatly reduced if the sun and the big star aren't compared side-by-side.. it's difficult to visualize the difference (which is the whole appeal of the image) with that "magnifying glass" trick that IMO gives you very little perspective. Go png! --⁪froth^t 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SVG - undecided on the PNG, for now - the SVG renders differently for me in the thumb and the full size. For instance, in the thumb, the font is something like Arial, but at the full size, it is a typewriter font, moreover, all the gradients disappear at the full rez. SVG is just too flaky in this case. FWIW, I'm running updated firefox on Mac OS X 10.3.9. Debivort 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - it doesn't make me want to know any more about the article, it doesn't even make want to click on the image, because there's nothing you can't see from the thumbnail Mcrawford620 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Not very interesting. I though I was looking at some random orange circle at first. Even after I clicked the image, I wasn't that impressed. It'll be much better if VY Canis Majoris actually looked like a star (with pretty solar flares larger than the sun and stuff), instead of a perfect circle. The SVG version is a bit better...since there's some color variation, but not by much. Sorry. Jumping cheese 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a circle and a dot? It may be technically accurate and informative, and a great addition to some articles. But there's just not much information being conveyed here. —Pengo 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though it does aid with the articles its appears in the quality of the image is not featured --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Childzy. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose PNG - it's a long way short on the aesthetics side of things. Also, I just don't think it's practical to attempt to use a single pixel to illustrate something. The SVG version is more informative. Stevage 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVG - Several reasons, but probably the strongest is its combination of simplicity and clarity. It just illustrates the point without frills. The inset is nicely done so that it's not showy, but clearly represents and expanded view. Nicely done. -Harmil 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]