Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Controlled Impact Demonstration

Controlled Impact Demonstration (Crash in the Desert)

 * Reason:These 5 images are visceral, technically excellent (for the time period and condition), demonstrations of a rather complicated event. If a spectacular fireball doesn't inspire you to read more about this, nothing will. I think these are viable as a set as they take place in a time frame of a few seconds; that said, they are all distinct images. If one preferred, they could be potentially merged into a single image. My preference would be to have them left as is.
 * Articles this image appears in:Controlled Impact Demonstration
 * Creator:NASA




 * Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have one more picture?  Franklin.vp   07:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing 5 in the gallery; are they not appearing for you? Or, did you mean something else? Cowtowner (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but with one more we would have 6 and could be arranged nicely ;)... or maybe delete one?.. nah. I guess it is better to display them in a row, I guess.  Franklin.vp   14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a practice approach image that would address that issue. Cowtowner (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Original I am sorry, but the images simply are not good enough. The first one particularly is incredibly blurry. The others are not much better. Considering the cameras NASA has, I cannot support such low quality images. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the nom, we need to consider the circumstances: fast moving plane, harsh desert lighting, 1984 image quality which, while respectable, is always going to have issues with relatively high ISOs needed to get reasonably sharp images of this kind of event. Considering FP criteria states that exceptions can be made, and this wouldn't be a huge stretch, if there is no reasonable chance of an alternative being found (anyone else want to crash a Boeing 720? Retail price is only about $30,000,000 in today's money)Cowtowner (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor circumstances does not excuse a poor image every time. I'm sorry, but I am still opposing. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  05:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support array, I arranged them in an array, the individual images aren't sufficient but I think the array despite being unconventional is. Still has issues but this sequence is one of the most encyclopedic things I've seen, you don't see something like this often outside of the fakeness of film. I've worked with NASA and am aware of how retarded they can be, so I'm extremely disappointed but not extremely surprised that they didn't do a good job of recording this. "It's from 1984" is no excuse. I also would rather have individual images but as said they're not sharp until resized to oblivion. They indeed do some things right I'll admit, I'm very fond of Earth Observatory Image of the Day on my Google homepage for example. &mdash; Ben pcc (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and don't call people "asshats." Besides, anyone who has ever seen "The Blue Marble" knows that NASA has really good cameras. Thanks for the array, but I am also opposing it. Same problems as the individuals. Also, the first of the six in the array does not go well with the others in the array. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT He removed the "asshats" while I was typing this. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I hadn't seen civility, only no personal attacks. To clarify: asshat means someone who has his/her head in his/her ass, thus can't see well and is not aware and thus might miss something obvious, such as decent photography of the purposeful spectacular demolition of a large jet aircraft. Sorry about that. They do do some things right I'll admit, I' quite fond of for example Earth Observatory Image of the Day on my Google homepage. &mdash; Ben pcc (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are digging quite the hole... Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  07:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pfft, this is nothing. Before living in the city I dug holes all the time. One of my most memorable holes was for a llama, it took me the better half of a day and I was so proud I asked my then 7 year old sister to pose in it for a photo. &mdash; Ben pcc (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Array Grainy at full size, yes, but immediate wow factor. We have plenty of FPs in array style, some of which (if I remember right) only make the size requirement because of the array. I have no issues with this being promoted. A better (i.e. more complete) caption on the image page is requested though.  upstate NYer  03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either. They both work for me, actually. They'd have to be seen as a set in either case though (I see no risk of that not being the case at the article any time in the future). Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Support Array  Better when smaller. One thing though, if this passes, the other version should be delisted. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Elekhh. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  07:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Array. -- Silversmith Hewwo 07:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Array of five is simply awkward. Images don't fit together (3rd and 5th image do not align horizontally with the other ones). Elekhh (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also oppose array of six: first image does not fit in the sequence. Elekhh (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on the right side of the bottom left picture in the array there is a white/light colored vertical line next to the black border. Why is that there? gren グレン 05:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see a very fine line on all of them which must be JPG compression (90% as with all of my images), the TGAs I worked with don't have it. &mdash; Ben pcc (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Array Immediate wow factor. The argument that NASA has better cameras is WP:BULLSHIT. — raeky ( talk 08:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your claim of bullshit is itself bullshit. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  06:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude. Chill :->. &mdash; Ben pcc (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, the person who called me an asshat is going to tell me how to behave. I have struck out my the worst of my comments to raeky, but methinks you will and I are going to have issues, seeing as how I don't tolerate stupidity, and your comment about the holes was, well, stupid. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not you, NASA. That's why I used the plural form. Like I said, I hadn't seen Civility (new rule? I could swear I read over the five pillars thoroughly a couple years ago) but am aware and enthusiastic about No Personal Attacks. Sorry for not being clear. And I'm still firm on that despite occasional gems, NASA isn't (I'll be civil this time) very smart. I'm the most serious guy I know so I try to make up for it by being as stupid as possible when I remember. Did you know that the average person isn't strong enough to drag a llama, an emaciated one even? Not me, anyway. &mdash; Ben pcc (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)