Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:First satellite photo - Explorer VI.jpg

First satellite photo of Earth

Reason: Can you believe we didn't have this picture anywhere? Yes, it's just a big white blur, but it's the first satellite photo of the Earth, for Pete's sake! Do you need another reason?
Articles this image appears in: Satellite imagery, Explorer 6
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator howcheng {chat} 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - brilliant picture! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I can't see anything... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even with the caption, I'm having trouble figuring out the image. From what I infer it's a smeared picture of clouds over the Pacific; the apparent curve to it is unrelated to the curvature of the earth. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 21:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually I place historical importance over technical issues, but even knowing what this picture is, I can't figure it out. Therefore there's no 'wow factor' at all. Highly informative so I won't oppose, but sorry, I can't support. faithless (^speak) 22:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Atropos235 --Uncle Bungle (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Looks like a scuff or something... ^8thstar 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's the first, but unfortunately so poor that it's almost meaningless. It should certainly appear in any history, but I don't think that's enough to transcend the very poor quality and become a FP. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A good reason to have this picture, but not a good reason to feature it. --Dschwen 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sure, it's a poor photo of the earth... but that's not the point... it's representing what the first satellite photo looks like--like the first photograph. Very important for satellite imagery gren グレン 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For comparison; the first photograph does have distinguishable features in it. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What the heck? Why did they even put a camera on it if all it can do is make smudges? This is a terrible picture; it's just a significant smudge that's been scratched to death. :D\=< (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I guess it's not gonna get passed, but I still see this as an image of super-historical importance. The image is of the picture itself, not of what it shows- the 'wow factor' comes from knowing what this picture is. It's like with the first photograph (which is featured)- you can't say that nothing much can be made out; it's not what you can and can't see, it's that it exists at all that's so 'wow'. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Historic, but its going to take a lot of explaning what it actually is. Spencer^T♦^C 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The caption clears up any problems for people who can't identify the image. As has been the case before in these parts, EV wins over esthetic/technical appeal. SingCal 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The caption doesn't help at all. It says it's a sun lit patch of the south pacific, but all I see is a white smear on a scratchy black field. Historical importance is worth consideration, but not when the picture is this bad. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an historically important but crummy image which I would not object to (except that surely a higher quality scan of this exists). --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I looked for a larger version of that image too, but could not find anything bigger than what we already have. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It almost seems daft to try to find a super high res picture of a very inherently low resolution image, similar to the first photograph linked above. I'm not being critical, and I know there are some other considerations because of resampling and it being analog, but there is a limit at some point. The first 'TV' image though does indeed seem somewhat more impressive/interesting, but a bit weasely because of the 'TV'. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I'm not trying to push the TV as an alternative. I was merely using it to illustrate the level of crumminess which I would accept. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was actually in the midst of writing a vote of strong support based on high historical value, but I just can't bring myself to do it. This is like... nominating Ansel Adams' first photograph even though he took it with the lens cap on or something... there's nothing there to feature. I'm glad we have this photo in the encyclopedia, but I can't think of a reasonable definition of "best" that would somehow include this. I could be convinced otherwise, I think. Matt Deres (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Being big and historically significant doesn't mean it's a good photo.The freddinator (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]