Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Damage to the Pentagon, September 11, 2001

Damage to the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

 * Reason:The attack on the Pentagon is somewhat forgotten when talking about 9/11, but killed 125 people at the Pentagon, as well as everyone on the plane. As such, I'd like to find something to commemorate that part of the attacks. However, this issue is one where it's hard to be objective, so I here submit three images, each of which shows the damage in a unique way.
 * Articles this image appears in:September_11,_2001_attacks, etc.
 * Creator:U.S. government


 * Support all three as nominator --Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support first - despite minor technical faults, massive enc and unreporducability make it a support, however I don't believe the other two are as enc. Why do we have no image of the impact point on the other side of the building (seen at the top of 1)? This looks like the 'exit hole' to me... from the documentaries I've seen, anyway. Wonderful file naming on the first one, that should be moved if possible. And I love the poster in the bottom left of 3: "QUIT HELL!!!". —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2 and 3, Neutral on 1 - these are snapshot quality photos. There is nothing remarkable about them other than the subject matter. Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support 1 while not opposing 2 or three, because 1 shows more of the extent of the damage because it's an aerial view (I'm assuming). They all have huge EV; 1 just has more EV. :) Kalari, by Oppose 2 and 3, does that mean you support 1, or neutral on 1? FP noms with multiple images are sometimes lost because it's not clarified if an oppose to some means an oppose to all or some, etc. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support first.--Avala (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support 1 and 2 - third one is too close.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support 1. Best colour, composition, and illustrative value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support all.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose all All three have tons of EV, but none of them are particularly great photos and they lack any 'wow' factor. The photos were all taken from awkward angles and don't show anything particularly dramatic - I'm sure that I've seen more striking photos of the Pentagon after the attack. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nick Dowling, and 2 and 3 are suffering from lens distortion Thisglad (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose all per Nick, and 1 because of the angle and tight crop, 2 3 because of snapshot style. --Base64 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support first or third - overwhelming EV. Composition on 3rd isn't all that bad. Detail on all of them is good. de Bivort 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nick. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support on 1, Oppose others I still get goosebumps when I see the pictures, but anyway, the first shows more extent of the overall damage to the Pentagon.  Spencer T♦C 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support 1, Neutral on others Very cool angle. Does an amazing job at showing the extent of the damage. Clegs (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose on all for same reasons others have said. In addition, from my point of view the pictures just show a "random unidentified" building with some damage and light smoke (#2) coming from it.  Had it not been stated what event and building it was depicting I would personally not have looked twice or bothered magnifying.  Big emotional value if you were affected in some way, I'm sure, but not much for me,  Even after I know what it is showing I can't get a good visual grasp of the actual damage caused and nothing else (not) visible sparks my interest. Laniala (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the images may have emotional value and even encyclopaedic value, they are not particularly good images. They're of poor technical quality, and there is no wow. J.T Pearson (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "there is no wow"? Were they supposed to make some HDR shots to make them "cool"?--Avala (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support 1 I think an overview shot illustrates the damage the best. Neutral for 2 and 3. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  16:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

- no consensus (could consider renominating image 1 on its own). --jjron (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)