An astronaut floats serenely above Earth in peaceful solitude. IMNSHO this is one of the most awe inspiring and beautiful images in the entire history of human spaceflight. What else needs to be said? :o).

• Nominate and support. - Deglr6328 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• It's... well... not striking and a bit boring. Also, there's too much of the Earth, so there's less room for the astronaut. It's... Thelb4! 10:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ??! Wow, no accounting for taste I guess but jeez, remind me to kill myself if I ever become so jaded as to think of floating in space hundreds of miles above the earth as being "boring". --66.66.219.142 22:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm I have to say that boring is not one of the adjectives that comes to mind when I see this. eh, oh well. --Deglr6328 04:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support. The photo quality is good, and I like how the background is divided between space and Earth. Not striking...I wonder. Have we got used to this by now? I am sure it would have been striking few decades ago.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, absolutely astonishing. Halibutt 23:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm, I find it fascinating, and I would have no qualms about supporting, although from an artistic point of view, I think the fact that the dividing line is in the middle is a little odd (rule of thirds). What do others think? Enochlau 07:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And support. Enochlau 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't care in the least whether it's 'artistically correct' or whatever, I just care that it looks good. Raven4x4x 08:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. What Raven said. :-O=== Great pic. Artistically correct my rear end, it just looks good, and that's what being an FP is about. It's just fascinating. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 10:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree about this picture...it's awesome, but as recent discussions have made clear, that is not only what being an FP is about. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. How could you not support this though? A classic photo. And I would say it is close to artistically and technically perfect. Its 'cover of National Geographic' quality to me. Diliff 12:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I always liked this photo as well. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Meh - anyone can float in space. It's not floating that's the hard part. Only kidding. Support. I have to admit it doesn't entirely float my boat because it does strike me as something I feel I've seen many times before - it's iconic. However I think such pictures look great associated with encyclopedias and will undoubtedly help draw in younger, less jaded, readers. --bodnotbod 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• SUPPORT. Directly above me is a poster of this exact photograph. Need I say more? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 06:36
• Oppose. Seen it a million times before. Lets find original contributions for the Featured Article page, to encourage wikipedians who are driven to contibute to this project.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think the fact that a particular image was not actually taken by the uploader is reasonable grounds for opposing. Many images, like this one, are impossible for us to take!--Deglr6328 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously, the solution is a special outreach program to astronauts. We can launch gift bags into orbit to encourage them them to be bold. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 16:59
      • Good points. I'll change to support. It is a classic image and would make a wonderful featured picture.—Gaff ^ταλκ 18:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• It's too beautiful to say no, I support it. — Sverdrup 09:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Edit. Original was way too hugh file size for my pathetic dial up connection, so have dropped the quality a bit and reduced the 7 meg file to 2 meg, plus some levels adjustments.
  • This edit is really pixelated. You might just reduce the size of the image to 2000x? or 1500x?, that'll drop the filesize down enough without having to lose any quality to pixelation. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 09:08
  • Also the Earth now looks VERY unnaturally blue.--Deglr6328 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Imagine being that guy! I'd literally die of fright! Anyway, supportez-vous. Oops, I forgot to sign. Kid Apathy 13:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support either version. Its an old school photo, but its still awesome. TomStar81 00:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support original, oppose edit. The Edit almost blows out the entire astronaut, quite a loss in details, I think the original exposure was just fine. As for the 7meg vs. 2meg, mediawiki scales down the image for you, why would you want to ruin the full experience for broadband users? No one forces you to download the fullsize version. Then again only weak support for the original. Yeah, it was a striking pic 20 years ago, but it it is sort of worn-out now, plus I think FPC sould be more of an encouragement to original wikipedia contributors, not pros who shoot these pictures anyways. --Dschwen 06:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just added a second edit. You're completely right, the edit by User:Fir0002 is pretty bad. It has merely bumped up the luminosity and colour noise and made the photo look very washed out and unrealistic. I think my edit is a good balance. I've increased the contrast slightly (but only slightly - I double checked and there are no highlights blown), reduced the size to 2000x2000 (as the original at 3072x3072 was quite soft in the first place and there is no appreciable loss of detail in scaling down slightly), sharpened slightly and recompressed to ~700kb. I think this is the one that should be used. All the features of the original while using up 10 times less space. Diliff 14:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bruce McCandless II during EVA in 1984.jpg Raven4x4x 12:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)