Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/9/11 Smoke Plume

The Smoke Plume on 9/11



 * Photo courtesy of NASA, taken by Landsat 7. I think it adds very much to it's article September 11, 2001 attacks,both by showing the extent of the damage, as well as by giving one a significantly different view. In several other languages, this picture is missing (maybe in all of them as I only checked about 10), and it feels as if the articles need it to display the damage done by terrorists on that day.


 * Nominate and Support | AndonicO 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash; The resolution is far too low for a satellite image. There is really nothing special about this image, except for the fact that there is a lot of smoke coming out of Manhattan. You've also made me realize that this shot of Antarctica needs to be delisted. ♠ SG →Talk 19:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * reluctant Oppose I was ready to go for this one based on the thumb, but the full size looks oversharpened and low res, and grainy in the smoke. Debivort 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this image is not something that we can just go out and take a better picture of. It is related specifically to a one time event. Therefore, I believe, taking this under consideration, the noise and other technical issues are outweighed by the encyclopedic value. It provides a unique view of the result of the attack, and illustrates the size/coverage of the smoke/debris cloud. If I am mistaken, and there are better satellite photos of this out there, then I would oppose this image, but barring that, I feel that this could be the quintessential satellite image for this topic.--Andrew c 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's just not a very special photograph. There are much better photo's illustrating 9/11 than this one, and there are much better satellite photo's too. Iorek85 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment All photographs are special, otherwise they would not be worth a thousand words, as the old saying goes. This is is worth even more because it is an event that will (hopefully) never happen again. I would encourage people not to list "its not a very special photograph" when opposing; if you insist on opposing, cite some tangible thing that hiderns the image’s promotion. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I understand it, Featured Pictures are supposed to be 'special' in that they are above and beyond the rest of the photos we have. As for 'never to be repeated', no event is ever (technically) repeated. My objections still stand - as a photo it isn't exceptional enough to qualify for FP, IMO.


 * Support This is a once in a life time shot. They didn't take a higher-res picture. Trust me, i've looked, and asked. And this is as good as it gets. Plus it shows one of the most memorable moments in world history Koolgiy 02:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It's sad; I agree with Debivort, but I can't get past the significance of the image. -- Tewy  02:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The full size copy from Goddard is double the resolution of the proposed image. I've uploaded and added it above for comparison.  Eyeballing the new image, I'd say it's at the full 15 meter resolution of Landsat 7; you're not likely to find much better from non-classified sources.  I don't believe anything's been done to the image beyond the standard Landsat processing (and I kept the JPEG setting at fairly high quality); it's just at the limits of the satellite.  That said, I'm Neutral, as per Tewy. --Davepape 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because we can't ever get it again doesn't mean its a fairly low quality satellite image. Featured pictures must meet several criteria.. the one this has going for it is encyclopedic value and that isn't enough to go make it an FP.  drumguy8800   C   T  07:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support Has quality issues, but is very historical. If a better image from a similar perspective can be found I would support this being delisted in favour of it. HighInBC 19:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose You can't even see the site properly. NegativeNed 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't believe this picture has any value. Sure it is of a historic event, but what does this say about the event? There was lots of smoke. Any big fire could create smoke, so this isn't special in that way. Sure the picture is an interesting novelty, but not useful. say1988 01:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, can't see anything but smoke. Ground shots would be much more illustrative. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A satellite picture of a big building fire would look exactly the same.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nautica Shad e  s  07:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)