Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Explosion in Turret

Explosion in Turret #2



 * Reason:Eye catching
 * Articles this image appears in:April 19, USS Iowa (BB-61), Live fire exercise
 * Creator:United States Navy

MER-C 04:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator &mdash; TomStar81 (Talk) 18:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I was going to weak support... but there is already an FP from this boat... if there was an article about the incident then I could see making this an FP (because of its historic importance, despite its obvious quality issues), but I am not sure now... gren グレン 22:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a vote supposed to be based soley on the photo? Moreover, our current Iowa FP is of a broadside, not a disaster that prompted a scandal. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are right or wrong. I tried to bring up this question in the talk page explicitly, suggesting that we make redundancy with other FPs a reason not to promote additional nominees, but with this was shot down - apparently in favor of people preferring a nebulous system in which we let people natural inclinations dictate the response on a photo by photo basis, rather than make a rule. Debivort 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the image best represent the subject? Since we are often unaware of the many different ways a subject can be represented an often useful way to tell is by looking at other representations of the subject.  The photo you nominated has many technical problems.  If it had been well executed I would have supported it, but since it wasn't I try to ascertain if a technically problematic photo does the best job of representing the subject.  My conclusion was because of the time bounded nature of the explosion it likely represents that pretty well; however, there is no article about that.  So, does it represent the ship or live firing exercises very well?  I am not convinced and one reason I don't think it represents either very well is because the other FP on this subject does both jobs more satisfactorily.  So, my main reasoning is that while the disaster is probably important, it probably isn't important enough to make a technically problematic image a featured picture for the two subjects (even though I haven't yet opposed).  And 1906 San Francisco earthquake has two FPs in it... and I think they both deserve to be featured. Hope that helps. gren グレン 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So the key issue here then is not so much the technical aspects of the photo, but the fact that the photo doesn't exist in its own independent article pertaining to the subject matter specifically; in this case, the concern is over the absence of an article detailing the 1989 explosion of the #2 turret aboard the battleship. Hypothetically, then, if an article on the subject was created, that would be a suficent reason to weigh the crappy technical aspects of the photograph against its historical criteria. Thats what I understand form this discussion, so my question here is: Is my read on this nomination correct? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In certain circumstances technical aspects of images become less important. For this image its low resolution was ignored because it is important and non-replicable.  There is not much rarity in depicting the Iowa so it should have a good quality or otherwise extraordinary photo to represent it.  If there was an article about the explosion of the gun and the death of the sailors then the guidelines for what would be the best to represent the article would change since we would have to look at criterion 5, "Adds value to an article", differently.  It isn't necessary to include this image in either article it is presently in.  It would not make or break the article.  It would (providing there are no better images of the explosion) make or break an article about the incident itself.  The guideline even says "[t]he encyclopedic value of the image is given priority over its artistic value".  So, I mentioned the other FP because that is a good image of the Iowa and inclusion/exclusion of this won't make or break the article especially since there is already another good image for it.  As for your read on the nomination... if you mean that a vote should solely be based on the photo then I'd say no, because rules 3 and 5 (and even 6, 8, and 9) mean that we need to compare to outside images/ideas. gren グレン 10:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - wow, the direct comparison really highlights how much better and more interesting the currently featured pic is. --jacobolus (t) 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The featured picture we already have is 'Not' depicting the same thing, i removed the image for comparrison because it is comparing chalk and cheese -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose a news pic not really an enc illustration, also why is this in Live fire exercise it it was a real accident? --Dschwen 07:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes this was a real accident; in fact, the incident holds the US Navy record of being the worse loss of life under 'peaceful' conditions. Its in live fire exercise because the accident occured while the ship was involved in a live fire exercise. Its listed there to illistrate the dangers involved in a live fire exercise when go wrong. Frankly, I am wondering if I may have better luck creating an article on the incident and then renominating the image. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)