Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eiffel Tower Lightning

Eiffel Tower Lightning


Not the biggest of images, but it is both a visually striking and historically interesting photograph. Already featured on the Commons.


 * Nominate and support. - zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's already a FP. --Pharaoh Hound 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a Commons FP - my understanding is that they're different processes and images can be separately considered for each. TSP 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Commons and Wikipedia FPs are seperate, as they are judged on different criteria. Raven4x4x 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Even though this is a rare, historic shot, the quality is simply horrible - it is a scan from a printed magazine page - a color scan of a B/W image, to boot! There should be a better quality lead image for lightning... --Janke | Talk 05:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason I opposed in vain on Commons -- it's too grainy and there's too much dust in the pic.  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support For me the encylopedic value outweighs the technical oppositions. --Mcginnly 11:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose because encyclopedic value to lightning article is marginal. This picture is more about the ET than lightning. --P199 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The picture is scaned from a printed media, that makes it grainy and with low quality.LadyofHats 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Oppose The historical value to ET and lightning is not significant. I'm not sure how significant this is to the history of photography. Can someone clarify this point? Witt y lama 12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an iconic photograph (I've seen reproductions of this photograph all over the place) and the original is stunning. There are some very large poster reproductions of high quality; the reproduced image here is awful in comparison. If somebody can find a higher quality version, I think that it would be a very good addition to the main ET article. It is one of the iconic representations of it. TheGrappler 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Poster makers are often very liberal with processing techniques. One question would be which level of editing we consider acceptable for Wikipedia.--Eloquence* 09:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too grainy.: Cab02 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - the subject of this picture is stunning, though I think the image needs additional processing. If anyone can clean up the image or find a higher resolution version, then it will be a far more suitable candidate for featured picture status (though I don't suppose photographs produced in 1906 will be too heavy on detail). Andrew (My talk &middot; World Cup) 16:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)