Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:TerraformedMarsGlobeRealistic.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 08:57:02

•  Info created by Ittiz - uploaded by Ittiz - nominated by Than217 -- 69.30.144.106 08:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- 69.30.144.106 08:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, no anonymous voting, please log in and vote.   ■ MMXX^talk  09:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment, "realistic" how? --Aqwis (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Really looks like how Mars would have been yeaaaaars ago. Great work. →Diti the penguin — 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Well, strictly speaking, it looks like this is the modern planet terraformed only recently into a more primal state-- the distinction being that modern geological features are visible which may not have existed when Mars was a wet planet. In particular, one would expect heavier erosion of all crater features if this were meant to show a "natural" scene. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the info. :) →Diti the penguin — 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question -- Not so quick, please. Even being an artist impression, I suppose it is based in some scientific data concerning the relief of Mars and the water available for filing the oceans. As far as I know, there is no evidence that so much water exists below the surface. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info Alvesgaspar: This is not an unrealistic portrayal. Mars is many billions of years old, and there is extensive geological evidence to support the theory that Mars was once much wetter than it is today. Check out the evidence for ancient shorelines on Mars; I'm sure there are many more articles out there. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment And this is really a moot point either way-- although I've demonstrated that Mars once had a comparable volume of water, this is an artist's impression of a terraformed version of the planet, and unless it is specified that the terraformation would utilize only materials extant to the planet, there is no reason to assume water could not be transferred from elsewhere in the solar system. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question Before I can vote on this, I need to know more about your process. Did you create this image entirely from scratch using a different image for your reference? Did you start with a photograph and then do all of your work on top of it as an extensive modification? Any info along those lines would be appreciated, since the accuracy of the distribution of the existing geological features of the planet is relevant to me. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not arguing, just asking. The picture will have much more value (at least, to me) if based on existing data (specially relief data) rather than on the imagination of the author. When I read "terraforming" I supposed this was a future view, not a past one. Bring the water from outside? Well, I'm also a fan of SF but that seems really too much... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support In article Terraforming of Mars there's lot's of explanations about this and similar images of the same author. Anyway, this is artistic impression, not NASA or some other agency image, but it's a really good job, and looks really convincing IMO. --Lošmi (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Like the terraforming episode of TNG where the layer beneath the salt water gained access to the machinery and started to defensively kill the terraformers for messing with what it really is. It is nice and perhaps even great artwork but its place is not here. -- carol (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose "An artist's impression...." —kallerna™ 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's not really possible to take a picture ... ianaré (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason a priori to exclude graphical renderings from FP status simply by virtue of their being artificial. If you vote to oppose based upon that criterion, then give a specific reason, please, as to why this image's method of creation makes it unsuitable for FP status. --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Great to see art of this quality being created for wiki projects. Fits in nicely with article. --ianaré (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support awesome rendering, in a hundred years this might be possible, we went from the first heavier than air flight to the first man on the moon in a humans lifetime.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose as Carol and also OR. Lycaon (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support very interesting image to say the least. Pbroks13 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ended here --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 3 oppose => featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

•  Support Very well done. As someone who dabbles in the graphic arts, I know that this must have been difficult (but fun!) to make. It's quality and usefulness is a testament to the skill of the creator. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Savant-fou (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Roman Zacharij (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]