Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Devastation in San Bruno after gas pipeline explosion

Devastation in San Bruno after gas pipeline explosion
Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 03:29:45 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality and good EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion San Bruno, California
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/History/USA History
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Very illustrative -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support either, though my preference is for the first of the two. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't like disaster images from ground level. I would much rather prefer an aerial view like this one because I understand the damages better. All I see in these two pictures is a bunch of mess, possibly created on a filming set. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is funny to me--I very nearly opposed the Haiti image on the principle that disaster images should be taken from ground level. There is something almost condescending about the usual aerial ones—I am thinking not only of Haiti but also the many Katrina images from helicopters, planes, and satellites.  Support original. Chick Bowen 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose alternative - something seriously wrong with the aspect ratio, not sure what to suggest - restitching *might* fix it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt as per PLW, neutral on original at this time. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's some info missing, e.g. who painted the numbers on the cars (and remnant elevations?), and what do they refer to (address of owner, simple sequence, arbitrary)? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I really hope that's not what you're basing your oppose lack of support on! You don't need to explain every detail in every FP! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like an explanation of the basic elements I'm looking at, yes - that's what we call encyclopaedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose alternative - What's with the strange lens? Its not even fisheye, its squished, then slanted and distorted, then squished once more... -- Usyflad 10  00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I withdraw alternative. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak support original. I think it's pretty cool- it's great to have images of this sort. I don't think it belongs in panorama- perhaps history? J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose original: I do not find this suitably informative or representative enough of the scale of the event. The view is too narrow and the mess has been mostly cleaned up.  A panorama would be more appropriate; this one says so much more, and I would like to see it in the explosion article.  Unfortunately, for the sake of a less informative FP, it probably will never fit there.   Mae din\ talk 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually tried to put to the article the image you mention. It was repeatedly removed, and I gave up, but you are mistaken about clean up. Clean up was performed much later on. First they removed the cars, and then they removed the ruins. Before that they checked the soil for asbestos, and let the owners in to see, if they could find something valuable.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * +5.5 -2 Makeemlighter (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)