Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/OSIRIS-REx sample return

OSIRIS-REx sample return

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2023 at 14:32:22 (UTC)

Original – The OSIRIS-REx sample return capsule upon landing in Utah on 24 September 2023

Alt - better view of the landing area in the Utah Test and Training Range

Reason: Quality photo of the OSIRIS-REx mission's sample return capsule upon landing in September 2023. The capsule returned samples collected from the Bennu asteroid in October 2020.
Articles in which this image appears: OSIRIS-REx, Sample-return mission, Comet Nucleus Dust and Organics Return, Extraterrestrial sample curation, +4
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator: NASA/Keegan Barber

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose – 'Somewhat' underwhelming. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not every encyclopedic image is visually stunning. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 22:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This photo has a more interesting composition and shows the landscape of the landing site much better. Not sure if it would have value for the article about the mission but I added it to Utah Test and Training Range, where it has obvious relevance. Weak support current nominee. blameless 03:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the other photo as well. It's a much, much better composition. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. Support alt. blameless 01:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tradeoff, scenery versus the capsule. The original nom image has more resolution on the capsule, and the capsule displays larger at thumbnail. It's more encyclopedic in the mission articles. The other photo suits the test range article. Prefer original. Bammesk (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support origiinal and alt, prefer alt. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 03:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Alt is a better image in the mission article: OSIRIS-REx, and I am not sure it will remain stable there, if added. The other listed articles are too generic for either photo. If the Alt image is not in the mission article and stable, then it has my oppose vote, in favor of my support vote for the Original image. Bammesk (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, both "Original" and "Alt". I support mostly the Alt picture. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Aviafanboi (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Historically interesting but not as a special picture in any way. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Blah. -- Sca (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this image of the capsule immediately after its landing, before people disturbed it in any way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kymothoë (talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kymothoë, what we know is the chronological photo sequence: Here, from arrival on the scene to the transportation of the capsule. Double click on any image to see its description and EXIF data. Bammesk (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staged photo - after the parachute lines were removed. It looks as if it was brushed down and straightened up too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then * '''Oppose'''. There simply isn't much information in the image. Kymothoë (talk) Kymothoë (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry about that formatting; I'm very new here. Kymothoë (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't staged, brushed down and straightened! The tilt is from front to back, not side to side, so it doesn't show in a frontal photo. Yes the parachute remnant was removed, and an orange sticker was placed on what appears to be a sensor hole (I suppose to prevent contamination). That's normal procedure, not manipulation. Not a disqualifier as far as I am concerned. Bammesk (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By my cound the original has 4,5 supports and the alt has 4, and therefore none of them has enough support for promotion. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]