Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NROL-39

NROL-39[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 10:11:12 (UTC)

**Original** – Official mission patch of National Reconnaissance Office launch Nrol-39

Reason: Unique image. Historic/Notable (extensive discussion of image in RSes). It "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". It's a highly-evocative and extremely effective work of art.
Articles in which this image appears: National Reconnaissance Office, NROL-39, List of NRO Launches
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others or perhaps Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
Creator: National Reconnaissance Office, US Government

Support as nominator. As Jon Stewart said: "Last week, the National Reconnaissance Office launched this spy satellite into orbit; And the logo they chose for their spy rocket-- this is real-- a giant octopus sucking the face off North America". It's an genuinely exquisite piece of propaganda art. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting the original The .svg doesn't seem to be 1:1 with the original Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - This is cool. That the patch has had critical commentary about it just sweetens the deal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with rationale by Crisco 1492, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (original) good EV, great critical commentary. --Admr Boltz 18:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Crisco 1492. This is a really amusing picture, yet creepy at the same time. One can only wonder how such a strange choice made it through. At least the government spooks have a sense of humor. Sn1pe! ^{(talk)(edits)} 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm not sure which image should be featured. Both the original and vector are amazing in their own way. The original is notable (see HectorMoffet's comments above), while the vector is a fine reproduction of said original and is an example of epic vector art. (Although this probably isn't really relevant) Sn1pe! ^{(talk)(edits)} 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support original, oppose vector Only one of these was actually used: Vectorization adds additional artistic decisions that aren't necessarily in the original artistic design. The colours are different, there's some realizations, and so on. I've seen this realized in paint or print a few times - by official sources - and it just doesn't look like the vector. Amongst other things: The font for "NROL-39" is obviously different; the latitude lines are missing on the globe, the gradient shading seems to be different - notably, the highlight ont he rightmost leg is different from any other version, and the octopus' shading seems a bit more slapdash than it is on other versions. The arm detail matches neither the patch nor any JPEG version; Some shapes have changed - for example, the dark triangle-like shapes moving towards the tentacle from the eye are three in number on the patch, and two on the vector, etc. Vectors are great when there isn't an official realization - coats of arms, etc - but aren't for everything. That said, if we could get a high-res JPEG to vectorise - a FOIA request should get that, if nothing else - I think this could all be fixed, but given the choice between a vector from a low-resolution JPEG, or a patch, I'll take the patch. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nrol-39.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]