Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Barnard2005

Barnard2005[edit]

First of all, the movement of Barnard's Star compared to the surrounding stars is amazing. It has importance in the field of astronomy, and is of relatively good quality for an image of a star. This may be a bit of a personal opinion, but I wonder what could throw a star that fast. I have my own hypothesis that a black hole did. I also wonder how long until it runs into something. That would definitely make FP status!

It is in, of course Barnard's Star.

Nominate and support. - ¢² Connor K. 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

It's fascinating if you know the background of the photo: what the subject is, why it's moving, and why that's significant. Unfortunately, it doesn't really have the visceral "wow" factor of a lot of astronomy photography. It's conceptually interesting, but visually unappealing. Snurks^TC 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to improve the "wow" factor? Because I think any star moving that fast is interesting. Just comparing it to the other stars in the picture wows me. Then again, I'm into astronomy, and I do know about the concept. Could a caption fix that? I'd appreciate any feedback.-- ¢² Connor K. 12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree with Snurks the image itself is pretty plain, even if the phenomenon isn't. Don't really see any way it could be doctored up or replaced. Too bad. Spyforthemoon 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixable problem: Look at the non-moving stars. Notice that the brightness (especially of the dimmer ones) varies between frames. This is probably caused by different observing circumstances in different years. 1995 and 2005 are noticeably dimmer. It would be good if someone could adjust the levels to make each frame match. --Dgies 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They also jump around quite a bit. ~ trialsanderrors 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How hard would it be to stabilize the rest of the image, so the only thing's that change are the date and Bernard's star?--Here T oHelp 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder: