Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1999 Oklahoma tornado damage

1999 Oklahoma tornado damage
Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 05:34:51 (UTC)
 * Reason:Though the image lacks the sharpness of more recent pictures, it is easily one of those "eye-catching" pictures that would make someone read an article. The combination of an American Flag blowing in the wind in front of a devastated neighborhood brings up some raw emotions. Personally, I find it to be the most standout image of the available ones for this specific tornado, which is also the costliest to ever hit the United States.
 * Articles in which this image appears:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, Patriotism
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
 * Creator:Andrea Booher (Federal Emergency Management Agency)


 * Support as nominator --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Poor EV for 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado.  Spikebrennan (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose' - Doesn't really show anything except that some Americans are patriotic. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note, I had a few other images which I thought of nominating, though I only was planning on nominating one. If one of these meets the critera better than the current one, I'll add it as an alternate (Thought it best to just link them rather than show all three as alternates). FWIW, they are:, , Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I quite like #1, even if it is noisy and a touch too tight at the sides (and currently unused). The other two aren't nearly as good IMO (suffering from random composition and poor quality respectively). BTW, I was surprised to see that our patriotism article is completely unillustrated. --Avenue (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose including #1. Nergaal (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, any reason for your oppose? Even if it's per someone above... gaz hiley .co.uk  12:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The original has essentially zero EV. Just because Americans like to call themselves patriotic when the really mean nationalistic, doesn't mean that we should feature a picture that further adds to their own confusion. #1 is just a mess, while the original is just a mess with a flag to cover half of the mess. Nergaal (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "mess" is part of the image. It's a portion of the destruction wrought by the tornado which destroyed thousands of homes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not being an American or even a 'flag person', any impact of this image is lost on me. And aside from that subjective reason, I don't see how this image is of high EV. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I didn't know that Americans went around and randomly planted flags after disasters "as a patriotic symbol of hope". Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One person stuck up a flag- you assume it is "a patriotic symbol of hope" and you think that, therefore, the image has EV? Right. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I drew my assumption from the caption in patriotism. Anyway, I find it pretty amusing that people would go around sticking up flags instead of saving people, rebuilding, or salvaging things. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose symbolism is in the eye of the beholder here, and EV in the tornado article is very small. This is a patriotic American saying this, too, btw. Dropping a flag on the Pentagon after a plane flies through it, that's symbolically patriotic. A flag waiving after one tornado really isn't.  upstate NYer  20:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose very little EV, and who cares about the patriotism here? (as UpstateNYer has pointed out) &mdash;innotata 20:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support IFF you can persuade me it's an iconic image from this tornado. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be pedantic, but can we not use iff in situations where it doesn't make any sense? JJ Harrison (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad, I only ever thought it meant "if and only if", had no idea its meaning goes deeper. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)