Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Challenger explosion.jpg

Challenger explosion


If you were born before 1982, this image needs no explanation. It is a high-quality (albeit a bit dark and a little fuzzy) picture taken shortly after the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated during lift-off. I couldn't believe this image wasn't listed at Category:Memorable photographs, or anywhere on Wikipedia or Commons, so I uploaded it from the ironically-named Great Images in NASA page.


 * Nominate and support. - Palm_Dogg 08:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very memorable and shocking. Perfect to illustrate the articles on the shuttle. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wikimol 12:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Definately memorable. Alr 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * . Wow. Just amazing, and very, very sombre. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4; &int;  &xi;  &phi;   18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Thorpe  | talk 19:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting. It should bring alot of attention to the article.--Ali K 04:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- A grim day for NASA, but a memorable photograph. TomStar81 05:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Enormous historical significance. --Janke | Talk 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very important - cohesion &#9733; talk 09:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I know this image is important and was widely published. I can't support it even so. We are looking at people dying in this image. No matter how widely seen, it remains too private a moment for me too look at without feeling as if I am intruding in an umcomfortably lurid manner. --Deglr6328 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself, "Is that a valid reason to oppose an FPC?" "Comfort factor" is not a concern. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me to do. Could you perhaps phrase your request in a more condescending and excessively simplistic manner? thanks.--Deglr6328 09:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - "Lest we forget" is the apropriate quote here, is it not? JQF 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It does capture the event very well, despite the grim circumstances. enochlau (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Mayamaxima 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support Amazing that this photo was taken --Fir0002 22:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Say again? NASA photograph everything, for documentation and technical research. --Janke | Talk 08:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My original photo was going to be Neil Armstrong's stool before he landed on the Moon. :) Palm_Dogg 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was taken with a motion picture camera. NASA used several motion picture cameras to image launches. The Public Affairs Officers then go in an grab the *best* frames. That other famous image of Challenger's launch with the birds in the foreground was taken the same way. 216.134.171.20 06:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support It would fit nicely considering the anniversary is coming up --ThrashedParanoid 03:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A very important image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- significant, memorable picture, adds substantially to the article -- Gurch 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Very historically significant. Vernon 01:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposte -- If we didn't know what was happening then the image wouldn't mean very much... This is probably true with some of the featured portraits but I don't think this image is very good... despite the importance of the event. gren グレン ? 08:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A great picture, shows what Wikipedia is capable of. Anchorage 12:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very significant. Staxringold 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with everybody on that :) Eyesclosed 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support Grenavitar has a point about how by itself (no caption), the picture would not mean as much. Still I believe that the placement of the picture (next to the "No explosion" section of the article)improved the article significantly. It gave a visual to the explaination of the incident instead of leaving it up to the imagination.--Jonthecheet 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I saw this happen live... on TV, sure... but NO caption is necessary. For the rest of my life I'll instantly know what that image is without being told. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was born a bit less than a decade after the incident and initially thought it was some picture about fire or smoke. The caption, to me, brought more significance to the picture. I think it would be analogous to a caption for the image of Saddam Hussein's statue being pulled down in Baghdad; future generations will not understand why the statue is taken down, but the caption could understand why the statue is being taken down. I think that is the purpose of captions.--Jonthecheet 04:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

