Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/FEMA - 4235 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-28-2001 in New York.jpg

Debris removal from World Trade Center Ground Zero

 * Reason:The image clearly has historic value, depicting the site of the World Trade Center buildings 17 days after their collapse. It also has a high resolution and good quality.
 * Articles in which this image appears:World Trade Center site, One Liberty Plaza, Millenium Hilton Hotel
 * Creator:Andrea Booher (FEMA)


 * Support as nominator --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please ensure that your picture is stable in an article before nominating. FPC decisions cannot and are not intended to, overrule editorial decisions made in articles. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * suggest speedy close as per PLW - not in any article... Gazhiley (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the image to the World Trade Center site article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my suggestion until image is stable in the article... Is it ok to suggest this gets withdrawn and re-listed once stable in article? Gazhiley (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have we adopted a rule that it must be stable for a set time? It seems like a useful and good quality image so I'm not sure why it would be removed from the article. Fletcher (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but my vote was within half hour of someone putting it in an article... Wanted to make sure no-one took it out again before making a futher mess and having to change vote again... Gazhiley (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Benjamint 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support good historical picture. It would benefit from some perspective correction and cropping of that black thing on the right, but we would lose too much detail in the edit.  Fletcher (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some more to the description to give an idea where the image is facing, just in case. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose a very valuaded image, but not featured. The quality and the light are to bad. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for historical value. I note, however, that a crop on the right would be good. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cropped out the object in question. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, valuable but not FP per Alchemist-hp. --Avenue (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'm just not seeing it, quality-wise, as above. (I would additionally question our ability to call this "valued", when it was added to articles only days ago- "valuable", maybe, but I doubt "valued".) J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, looking again, I'm getting a feel this has had some kind of 'shopping- could someone with a better eye than me confirm one way or the other? J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the very warm color balance? The shadows suggest it's late afternoon. Fletcher (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't see what lets this off the quality hook.   Mae din \talk 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)