Support as nominator --Zoo Fari 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too verbose. Just indicate energy at appropriate arrows, and give a legend or labels to identify IR vs. broad spectrum. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where are irradiance numbers coming from? I can't see any references in the image or in the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The incoming solar radiation (or energy) is 343 Watts per m². So basically the numbers come from the sun's solar energy, starting at what is coming through the atmosphere, which is described as "incoming". Zoo Fari 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, my point is ^{[citation needed]} essentially. You need to state where the information comes from. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but apart from being quite cramped and there being little to differentiate the Earth, the atmosphere and the greenhouse gas layer I just think I've seen more attractive, clearer images of the subject matter. Guest9999 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arrows are wack and the majority of the text is badly placed. Try reading some articles on typography and re-submit. For example the vertical height of "Atmosphere" "Earth" "Greenhouse Gasses" should be uniform and the text is especially hard to read across the horizon line.Teque5 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]