Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/World Trade center remnants

World Trade Center after 9/11

Reason

Sharp, clear, high-resolution, historic and encyclopedic

Articles this image appears in

September 11, 2001 attacks

Creator

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Support as nominator — Brent Ward 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support wow - stunning. I'd like to know a bit more about which buildings we are looking at. the main towers? building 7? Debivort 17:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And I'd vote that way even if it was reproducible. Perhaps not the most stunning pic I've ever seen, but certainly FP material.--HereToHelp 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with everything nominator said, except that I can't see it as FP material. There's no composition or obvious focus, the picture is of part of the rubble with a few cranes. It's appropriate for the article of course, but I don't think it's an example of WP's best. ~ Veledan • Talk 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you agree with everything i said, you'd agree that its "sharp,clear, high-resoultion, historic and encyclopedic" which qualifies it for featured picture status, and contradicts most of your reasons for opposing Brent Ward 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say it fails part of criterion 1 (good composition), and criterion 3 (WP's best work). I don't think the special circs for historical or irreproducible pics apply when there are hundreds of thousands of images of a subject available. A google image search finds 1000s of more impressive images IMO: couple of examples from just the first 2 pages: [1] [2] [3]. The fact that many of them are unuseable due to copyright or small size doesn't mean we should promote an inferior image just because it's the only one we've found so far. For that matter, doing the image search just on .gov sites where many if not most of the images are PD quickly turns up some good hi-res ones: check out [4] for an example. But even if there were no better PD images of the same subject, I'd still find this one a bit grey and flat. Worthy of being in the article if no better could be found, yes, but I'd not support it for FP. ~ Veledan • Talk 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea of a good image in this nomination in all the others is clearly subjective. However, this is an aerial view of the rubble and the shot occurred 12 days after the event so you wouldn't expect much of an impact. Also this image coveres more ground, and it isn't meant to be pretty, its rubble, and if the alleged good images have copyright restraints, why bother mentioning them. At least this image gives some idea as to the scale of the attack --Brent Ward 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I think this image does a pretty poor job of showing the scale of the attack since there are no obvious references in the image. Its difficult to know exactly what you're looking at. this one that Veledan mentioned does a much better job at showing scale, since we can see the surrounding buildings. And I think Veledan does have a point - better images may have copyright restraints, but we don't HAVE to have a WTC featured picture if the available images are not up to scratch. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually [5] has blown highlight at the top left, is covered with chromatic speckle, and does not show the extent of the devastation. Yes, that one mound--who's top is cut off so I can't see how tall it is--looks pretty bad, but the nominated image shows how much area the debris covered.--HereToHelp 23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is there a higher resolution of the image you linked to,
              Anynobody 06:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Oppose Not even the best free image of the aftermath on the September 11 page. The remains of world trade center 6 also wouldn't be my first choice for a september 11 aftermath shot. We DO need a featured picture of this general subject, but that doesn't mean this image should be featured. Enuja 00:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Veledan. --TotoBaggins 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, photo meets
  Anynobody 03:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose poor, uninteresting composition, doesn't tell me much about the subject or make me interested in learning more about it. Even though it isn't just a construction site, that's pretty much what this image looks like. Mak (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subject matter is amazing, the photo relatively (and individually) quite poor, per comments above. Another "featured subject" candidate, I'm afraid. mikaul^talk 12:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator and the first couple of support votes. I disagree with the comments that the composition is uninteresting or uninformative. Spikebrennan 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose lack of context. I've see better images which display a lot of the surrounding area. In this case it's hard to identify what's pictured. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]