Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Radar

Radar

Reason: I like this image because it easily demonstraights the principle of radar, and it looks apealling to the eye. I found this by accident last night while checking out pages for the heck of it.
Articles this image appears in: Radar
Creator: commons:User:Pierre_cb
Nominator: TomStar81 (Talk)

Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Lots of faults. Radio wave should not change color. Doesn't demonstrate that much more energy is radiated than is reflected. Does not show how radar is used to build an image. The tight beam confinement shown is not demonstrative of pulse radar. Should show reflection off a more typical subject such as an airplane. The timing of the animation makes it look like the signal is being send by the object and bouncing off the dish. —Dgies^t c 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dgies' last point alone does it for me. It really does appear that the wave is originating at the 'dot' and bouncing off the dish. There should be a delay in between each 'ping'. And his other points are all valid as well. But this is an interesting subject for an animation. --Bridgecross 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I don't think it would be right to have an animation as a featured picture.
Sign Here
04:56, 31 December 2006}}
- Comment That happens quite often, actually. Jellocube27 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why this was proposed. --Tewy 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It doesn't even fit the size requirement.--
    Sign Here 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - From
      WP:WIAFP: While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. --Tewy 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Oppose, far too abstract to be really featured-level, it only gives the most basic operating principle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For featured status, I think it should be a little more descriptive. Dgies pretty much summed it up. --Tewy 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per well enumerated reasons above. Debivort 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Bridgecross' comment. -- Alt iris Exeunt 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. —sd31415 (sign here) 15:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's a bit basic for FP -m w ^e 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]