Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edward Teller, 1958 (2)

Edward Teller, 1958 (2)
Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2010 at 00:40:34 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is a high EV image. I am not sure if I should crop out the picture that is cut off above the subject
 * Articles in which this image appears:Edward Teller History of the Teller–Ulam design History of nuclear weapons List of George Washington University faculty Hungary
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:U.S. Government


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support There is a lot of dust and hair that needs to be cleaned. The original crop seems odd, but the photographer clearly wanted to include the pictures of the calutron and the A-bomb test. The subject is interesting, the contrast and brightness are great, and it is of enormous historical significance. If others are in agreement, I’ll volunteer to clean this. Greg L (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. (a little bit of nice but “irrelevant” info): Here’s Jumbo, 214 tons of a steel containment vessel. In event that Gadget during the Trinity test didn’t do it’s “nuclear thing,” they were thinking they’d set it off inside Jumbo so the precious plutonium could be recovered. They delivered Jumbo to the test site but decided not to use it because A) they figured the odds of Gadget not working were slim, and B), they feared that when Gadget went nuclear, it might blow pieces of Jumbo all over the desert. So they set Jumbo 800 yards away from the shot tower. It suffered hardly a scratch from the explosion. We need an article on Jumbo—I’m not seeing it in the disambiguation. Greg L (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Make a stub (i.e. create a minimal article) and link it from the disambiguation page, and it will grow. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose until cleaned. Easy to do, even with free software such as GIMP. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mildly support I don't like supporting this nomination because of its technical standard, but he is really really important. Gut Monk (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we find an important day to feature him on? Gut Monk (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a job for - making decisions here won't really have any affect. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment His eyes look goofy. Do you know why? He has one blue eye and one hazel eye. He is a bichromate. Gut Monk (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. In interviews in later life, his eyebrows became hedgerows and that’s what I recalled to this day. But I see the bi-color now. Greg L (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

-
 * NOTE Seeing that there is support for this if it is cleaned up, I’ll do so now… Greg L (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support “Dust & scratches” “Dust & scratches and fewer smudges” The crop seems odd, but the photographer clearly wanted to include the pictures of the calutron and the A-bomb test. The subject is interesting, the contrast and brightness are great, and it is of enormous historical significance. Greg L (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support "Dust & scratches and fewer smudges". Looks like a reasonably clean photo now. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry to be the boring one, but do we know the copyright status of the photos in the background? I do not feel comfortable featuring a picture that prominently includes copyrighted work; it's not great from a philosophical standpoint, but I think these may be too big for de minimis, meaning, if they aren't PD, we may not be legit legally. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's highly likely that those images are government works, and since they've been named, it should be possible to find out if that is the case. I have my doubts that Teller would have gone to an outside source to decorate his office, but in any case - let's check! Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, the nuke photo is very similar to this exposure of the same event. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can find no non-US-gvmt images of the Calutron racetrack, and similarly for Upshot/Badger. I don't see why we should have to censor where the LLNL does not. As far as I can tell, we're simply following their lead in good faith. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure about the caultron image, but there isn’t enough of that one showing so this would clearly be a fair-use for that one. As for the a-bomb test, all those Trinity shots are DOE photos. I know because back in the early 80's I actually spoke with Harold Edgerton over the phone—I called him at his house—because I wanted to get the top-most Rapatronic image here (which is of a test after Trinity). He told me to contact DOE. Besides, both those images are roughly 680 pixels across but are blurry as all get out. The fuzziness doesn’t remotely diminish until they are only 200 pixels across—and they’re both image fragments. BTW, in that Raptatronic image, the bomb hasn’t really quite begun exploding (in the classical sense where the casing is flying apart) yet. The core exploded and gamma rays instantly flashed through the bomb’s casing and ionized the air surrounding the bomb. That’s the millisecond-long flash seen at the beginning of all atom-bomb explosions. In that topmost Rapatronic image, the ionized air is cooling off and is once again becoming transparent to light. Wicked. In the Rapatronic photo below it, hot gas from the actual exploded bomb is visible. That’s why you get millisecond flash, millisecond dark, and then long-persisistence bright: the signature of an A-bomb explosion. You get this effect where the air surrounding the bomb “explodes” before the bomb casing does because the plutonium pit at the heart of an atom bomb fully fissions very, very quickly. It takes roughly 82 fission generations (fissioning nucleus to cause two others to fission), or “shakes” for a plutonium pit to finish fissioning. Each shake averages only 10 nanoseconds. Some 94% of the energy released by an A-bomb is generated in the last four shakes; that is, 94% of an A-bomb’s yield is generated in only 0.04 millionth of a second. Quick stuff. Greg L (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support "Dust & scratches and fewer smudges" - Mostly as above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just not a great shot, IMO. Awkward composition with cut off pictures at the top and too tight crop on the sides (particularly the left). The picture is pretty much completely unappealing too - the wall is horrid and Teller looks rather displeased with the whole situation. I'm not a big fan of portraits, in general, since they typically do nothing more than show us what a person looks like. So I'd say this has decent EV but not enough to be a FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Teller is known for the bomb, and the photographer by including the two images, although making the picture awkwardly composed, accomplishes in a single picture to get the essence of what the man is known for. I think it could of been executed better, and yes the wall is horrid looking, hes not making the best face, and it's just strangely composed. So it gets a week support for me. — raeky ( talk 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote below came after voting closed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly came after the red text popped up, but I'm not sure we've ever decided what that means. Probably something for discussion... Makeemlighter (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus was established as "no late votes accepted". The red text marks the deadline. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm just not seeing it, sorry. Concerned about the copyright issue I raised above, and the composition is weak... We allow lower technical standards for older FPs, but I can't see why we should be forgiving of poor composition. J Milburn (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination wasn't closed when I added my oppose. You'll note my comments above (made long before red text was thrown anywhere) raised concerns, I just didn't write "oppose". J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din\ talk 12:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)