Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima

Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2012 at 16:44:07 (UTC)
 * Reason:Has excellent encyclopedic value, high resolution and a good caption. (Not the best as far as quality goes, but how good the quality is doesn't surpass the EV.)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Little Boy, Air Raids on Japan, 1945 in the United States, +5 others.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/History/World War II
 * Creator:Sgt. George R. Caron


 * Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a more impressive photo taken 500 m above the city, but I'm not sure whether it satisfies the 10-year requirement of Japanese license tag. Brand meister  t   23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a similar but clearer featured picture of the Nagasaki bombing. I don't think that necessarily affects this nomination, however. Chick Bowen 03:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That photo is more iconic --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  04:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominated picture was very widely redistributed, people recognize it and know exactly what it is before without thinking twice. I think it best represents the event over other less recognizable photos no matter how impressive they or iconic they may be (I am not trying to be negative, there is just not another way to word it. No offense intended). Dusty777 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never seen this photo before. All of the books and textbooks that include pictures of atomic explosions use the Nagasaki image. That's what makes the other image so iconic. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  01:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the photo is grany and of a fairly low quality. The visual concerns have not been eclipsed by arguments that the photo is iconic or well know in its present form --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  01:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will grant you that the picture is grainy and is of a fairly low quality, but you have to remember that you cant judge a picture taken nearly 70 years ago according to today's standards. It is also good to consider the encyclopedic value of the picture. This bomb ushered in the atomic age, and it was the worlds first nuclear bomb used in warfare. It was an important moment in world history. The other picture (most kindly provided by Brandmeister) is impressive.... But it is of no better quality then the current nominated picture, nor is the current FP of the Nagasaki bomb of any better quality (yet it's a featured picture). Dusty777 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've uploaded a new version. @Dusty777, in the future, please ask for image improvement at WP:GL/PHOTO or commons:COM:GL/PHOTO if needed, before nominating it here.  ■ MMXX  talk  00:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Image improvement? If you don't mind my asking, what gave you the impression that i wanted the picture improved? Dusty777 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't want it, but as you see, the image needed more restoration. anyway I don't think that's good enough for FP yet.  ■ MMXX  talk  23:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. =D Dusty777 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for both. A valued image, but a very poor quality. The retouched version is to dark. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a new brighter version over alt 1.  ■ MMXX  talk  23:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support I don't know why this image is not considered for FP. It is one of the most important landmarks in human history and I don't think we can find any better image because at that time photographs couldn't have been any better. Hariya1234 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, didn't see the Nagasaki bomb image. Hariya1234 (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)