Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crew of STS-107

Crew of STS-107
Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 08:10:13 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality official portrait of the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia mission STS-107. On February 1, 2003, Columbia disintegrated during atmospheric reentry and all of the crew died in the accident. While the photo isn't especially striking, it has high historic and encyclopedic value. The photo was previously nominated for Featured Picture in 2006.
 * Articles in which this image appears:STS-107, Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and others
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:NASA


 * Support as nominator --Pine✉ 08:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, unless someone can make a case against the technicals. From where I'm sitting the only possible opposition is, as in 2006, that it doesn't have "impact". But it doesn't need to. The EV is huge. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'll be honest, I'd like this to be an FP, but I don't think it qualifies. The above mentioned nominations set a precedent, though it is not for the reasons established in those noms that I oppose this one. Let me explain: I think it is safe to say this image adds little to the accident page, as it is not about the accident. Therefore, I think this image should be held to the same standards as all other crew photos when it comes crew photos in articles about the missions. In the few other shuttle mission articles I checked, the crew photos are not featured pictures. Now, if there was an article about the crew of STS-107, this would be a no-brainier support, as the image would illustrate the scope of the article and would not be able to be retaken as they are all dead. But the article is about the mission, not the crew. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  15:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think that the crew, all personally involved, of an accident contributes to an article about the accident? I heartily disagree. If there was a photograph of the Busby Babes then that would contribute to the article on the crash by showing those who died and survived, just like this one. I also question whether FPC really applies a question of precedent at all. We have plenty of renominations that pass the second time, we shouldn't feel bound per se. You might agree with the original objection, you might not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. If the crew were to blame for the accident, then that would be one thing. But they were not. So how much does the image of the crew add to the article of the accident? Some, yes. It is important to know the people that died in the accident. But does it illustrate the accident? That is what I meant, that it adds little in the FP realm. If the image was that of a dead crewmember after the accident, then it would have a enough EV for FP. But this image would be the same one had there been no accident. Hence, my comment that this image should be treated the same as all other spaceship crew photos.
 * I just checked, neither the Apollo 13 crew picture nor the Apollo 1 crew picture are featured. We already mentioned the Challenger crew photo not being FP. No, I don't think a precedent is binding. Regardless, my comments indicated that I didn't oppose this nom due to the previous noms.
 * Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from a little better. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  19:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with you here. There is an article on STS-107 and the composition of the crew is relevant to a shuttle flight. Each crew trains for the specific missions that happened during a specific flight. A photo of good quality for each mission's crew would have its place among FPs if we can get a photo that has sufficient size and technical quality, and I believe that this photo passes those tests for STS-107. Also, wouldn't you say that the identities of the deceased individuals are relevant for showing the consequences of the accident? Pine✉ 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Most NASA missions will have a good crew shot. Can they all be FPs? Sure. You are correct in that the crew is specific to each mission. The crew is only part of the mission, just as the orbiter is only part of it. The mission itself are all the experiments and work that was done while in orbit by the crew in the shuttle. That is what I think would wholly illustrate the mission and if it is a good image should be FP. I oppose this nom on the basis that it adds to the article because the mission failed. If we decide it is OK for all crew shots (if good) to be FPs, I will support it in that regard. Now, I do not disagree with you that identifying the deceased is important. Their mere picture doesn't fully illustrate the consequences of the accident however. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because Apollo 13 nor Apollo 1 have their crew picture as featured, doesn't mean they can't be. I checked also, and neither pictures were ever nominated, so no one knows if they would be promoted or not. That is a poor reason for an Oppose (not to disregard your other reasons.) Dusty 777 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't at all a reason for my oppose. Notice how I wrote that after my main explanation of my vote. My point was that this image should be treated as any other crew photo. If we decide to start nominating crew photos (of which there are a lot), I'm OK with that. I just don't think this one deserves to be FP solely on the basis that the crew died. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Just so you understand where I'm coming from in terms of how well an image adds EV, I think the following files significantly add EV to the accident article: File:Space mirror sts107.jpg, File:STS-107 Columbia entry imaged from ground.jpg, File:STS-107-Debris KSC Hangar.jpg, and File:Impact-test.jpg. That is not to say they would meet the quality criteria for FP. In terms of EV: the first are the names of the astronauts in the NASA mirror, the second shows how the shuttle started to disintegrate, the third shows the aftermath of the accident, and the fourth shows how big a hole was in the orbiter. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Historically significant, not an ordinary STS crew photo and perhaps the best among other STS 107 photos. This is good also (shows their boots in particular, which are out on the nominated photo), but is unfortunately smaller. Brandmeistertalk  21:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I see no problems here. The EV is excellent in STS-107 (after all, the crew was STS-107.) Dusty 777 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The crew is not the most featured part of the mission. They are the most important part of the disaster; but the file File:STS-107-Debris KSC Hangar.jpg has more "emotional EV" there than just a group snap. Further it shows the enormous people involved in that mission and their feelings. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Has very high EV in the STS-107 article. But what separates it from other crew photos is its EV (albeit smaller) in the disaster article. Added up, I feel the EV is sufficient. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Dusty777. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

--Julia\talk 23:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)