Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hubble Space Telescope

Hubble Space Telescope[edit]

Interestingly enough, there are very few featured articles using featured pictures. This one unsurprisingly illustrate Hubble Space Telescope. Over the next few weeks, I will be looking at Featured articles to find other suitable Ffeatured pictures.

Nominate and support. - Circeus 23:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Decent, but may not be striking enough for featured status. The notion that FA's should have FP's is promising, but the pictures still have to be of quality. Just my two cents. Phoenix2 03:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Phoenix2 15:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Support--ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's just not that interesting, and the colors are a bit dull. For all the spectacular images the Hubble has given us, the telescope itself looks like a beaten up tin can. Coffee 18:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose Agree with Coffee, and I also find the resolution disappointing - most of NASA's images are at high res --Fir0002 03:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Enochlau 05:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't strike you. Not good enough to be FP.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are pictures of HST available from NASA that are more detailed. For instance: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-109/hires/s109e5700.jpg - Bevo 13:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I love the Hybble and the images it's taken, this one is just not very flattering. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 2/1/6 -- Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)