Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lightning striking the Eiffel Tower

Lightning striking the Eiffel Tower

 * Reason:Unique historic image (a cleaned-up version of this image). The caption admittedly needs work but I believe the image itself is featurable.
 * Proposed caption: Lightning strikes the Eiffel Tower on June 3 1902. During a lightning strike, the presence of electrical charges on the tops of prominent objects such as tall buildings and trees enhances the electric field formed by the stepped leader. The current flowing between the two oppositely-charged fields creates the electrical discharge.
 * Articles this image appears in:Eiffel Tower, Lightning
 * Creator:M. G. Loppé


 * Support as nominator CillaИ X&diams;C [dic]  00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support Not sure how unique this is, considering lightning probably strikes the tower during every Parisian storm, but it looks good for the period. the caption might need a bit more work, as you suggest.--HereToHelp 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks like a scan from an old magazine, not the original photo. Even in 1902, photos were better than this. IIRC, this has been up before (probably another version of the same pic, or a very similar one, since there's nothing in the file links). --Janke | Talk 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Indeed you're right Janke. This image in fact appears in no articles (tsk, tsk). It is this version that's in lightning and Eiffel Tower. And that one has been nominated before, and roundly opposed (though as the nom says, this version has been fixed up a bit). --jjron 08:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (Hehe, just noticed, you were the first to oppose it last time too. --jjron 08:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)) OK, done a bit more looking - I wonder if a better caption wouldn't be the one included with and below the image on what I presume is the source site for the photo here at the NOAA Photo Library? --jjron 09:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You're right, it's the other version that appears in the articles. I cleaned-up that version to create this one but I wasn't sure if I should replace the image in the articles (this is my first time nominating so I admit I probably made a few mistakes :S). I didn't realize the image had been nominated before. :S CillaИ X&diams;C [dic]  12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically the nominated version should be the one in the article - it's probably not a big issue seeing as it's basically the same picture, but still, it's the principle. And if this one's an improvement, then it probably should go in the article. If nothing else, at least you've fixed up the tilt.  --jjron 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it completely for real, this shot? The minor rays to the sides look convincing enough, the way they merge with the sky, but those ones on top look retouched, if not painted in. Look closely and there's no "interaction" with the grain of the emulsion and the bleached out rays, which appear sharper and better-defined than the tower itself. Just wondered.. mikaultalk 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose not very good quality, only mildly historic, and not particularly encyclopedic of anything. There are lots of pictures of the Eiffel tower and lots of pictures of lightning, so why nominate this rather poor specimen of either? Any historical weight is blown out by the poor quality, darkness, and large number of other pictures of the tower from the early 20th century. Matt Deres 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per above --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, poorish quality, and not encyclopedic per above. *Cremepuff  222*  01:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No real encyclopedic value. We've got better pictures of lightning and the Eiffel tower. The fact that it's 100 years old doesn't really change much. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Eiffel Tower 1902 Lightning Strike is briefly seen in Evrett's movie, Be the Pairs (2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.21.250 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)