Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2010 at 02:14:08 (UTC)
Original - This high resolution image of the "Face on Mars" landform in the Cydonia region of Mars was taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2007, more than 20 years after Viking 1 captured the original image that gave the hill its popular name.Edit 1 - Includes an inset of the original Viking 1 image
Reason
The highest resolution image available of the famous "face on Mars." Looks good, high EV, and just plain cool.
Support It is a difficult-to-take picture that was executed as well as is humanly possible at the moment. Interesting. Stop, stare & click. Good for POTD. Next up: refuting Bat Boy.Greg L (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm gonna be honest, without the face, there's nothing to this. The EV is clear, and the quality is high, but I can't help but feel that it would be better as a standalone image if we could still see the "face"- perhaps it could be added somewhere as a comparison? I'm not sure... As it stands in the article now, yeah, this is great, but I think this image can only really be understood in context, and that context requires an image of the "face". J Milburn (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has loads of EV showing that the face is just a trick of the light and at a different angle it's just a hill. The EV is how it's used in the article. — raekyT14:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound like a smart ass, but this is the higher quality image. The resemblance diminishes as the resolution and detail increases. I think the edit strikes a nice balance between the face and the actual shape of the mound. Cowtowner (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if it's necessarily better, but I added an inset of the original image that was taken by Viking 1 for comparison. See Edit 1--AutoGyro (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. I can't help but feel that the alt would look better on the main page, but it's clearly the original that is better in context. It would be highly hypocritical of me to make my choice based on main page concerns, so I am, after some thought, happy to support here.J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Have to squint a bit, and remember exactly what image you're looking for, but they ARE aligned. It just looks like the one's upside-down because the mouth of the original looks like it "should be" the eyes. Support edit. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
