Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Shoemaker crater.jpg

Shoemaker Crater Aerial View

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 15:09:50 (UTC)

Original - 'The Shoemaker crater (formerly known as Teague Ring) is an impact structure (or astrobleme) which lies in the arid, central part of Western Australia near Wiluna. The crater is about 30 kilometers (18 miles) in diameter and contains seasonal lakes that produce salt deposits as they evaporate. It is approximately 1.7 billion years old and is regarded as the oldest known Australian impact structure to date.'

Reason

An, IMO, spectacular (satellite?) shot of one of the largest and very old meteorite strikes on the planet.

Articles in which this image appears

Shoemaker crater

FP category for this image

Landscapes

Creator

U.S. Department of the Interior, uploaded by Zumthie

• Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Pretty at first glance, but after all it is just a 1.5MP image that looks like an abstract painting. I find it difficult to relate to. There is no sense of scale, no recognizable features. This does not help me get an idea of how the crater looks like. --Dschwen 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I appreciate this may seem ridiculous, but where's the crater? J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• To above, this is my guess from my amateur knowledge of meteorite strikes. When a meteorite strikes it creates a very hard layer of melted rock, this could probably become a bed for lakes to form if large enough, and this one is large enough. Also, it's 18 miles across and 2 billion years old, I think it's probably eroded and mostly filled in over time, so it's not as easy to see its circle, but this should help you see it, it's there. I could be wrong, but it looks like the meteorite actually hit a mountain range, it must've been an interesting sight to behold -- from, maybe 100 miles away! --I'ḏ♥One 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I’m seeing a number of really encyclopedic, interesting nominations recently. This is another. Greg L (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not very high resolution for a satellite image, nor is it sharp. It looks pretty compressed, actually.Hypershadow647 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Where is it not sharp? Are you taking into account that the area of the image shown is something like 3000 square miles (Appx. 50mi×55mi)? --I'ḏ♥One 00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I keep on thinking I've seen much sharper satellite images, but I can't find any examples (anywhere) to support this, so I guess my expectations are just too high. My bad.Hypershadow647 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well,that corresponds to a bit more than 60m per pixel. Landsat can do up to four times better. Modern non-classified satellites have up to half a meter (GeoEye-1) resolution. In any case 60m is not impressive, in particular if you cannot see anything useful on the image. --Dschwen 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm afraid I just can't tell what I'm looking at here, and no one has enlightened me. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Read my comment above. --I'ḏ♥One 20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dschwen. No real sense of what we're looking at or sense of scale, small for a satellite image. Jujutacular ^talk 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per J. Heart, I agree with your logic (what do you expect at a 50 mile focus?) but if I saw a smaller image of this, I wouldn't be inclined to pursue it. Gut Monk (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)