Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Operation Upshot-Knothole

Operation Upshot-Knothole

 * Reason:This is a bit more than your average cannon...
 * Proposed caption:A gun-type fission weapon was fired from an 11-inch artillery piece called "Atomic Annie" on May 25, 1953. The 4.5-foot long shell produced a 15-kiloton nuclear blast 6.2 miles away.  This was the only nuclear artillery shell actually fired in the US test program.
 * Articles this image appears in:Nuclear artillery
 * Creator:Department of Energy


 * Support as nominator Mike Serfas 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral The image is recognizable, I will give you that, bu the picture needs some cleanup before I can support it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to alter the color balance to improve contrast and white balance - but bear in mind that I have no idea what the sky should look like during a nuclear blast. I'm not sure how many times the colors have been altered previously in the image's history, either.


 * Comment, how unique is this picture? In my opinion, this picture, being as unsharp as it is, needs to be very unique to become featured. In any case, it needs some clonebrushing before i can support it. --Aqwis 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the image may contain dust or scratches from an original scanned photograph, but it's very hard to tell them from actual shrapnel of the explosion. Still, further retouching might make it look nicer... but is it appropriate? I've made an attempt, though. Mike Serfas 00:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support edit - An iconic image. Most of the public test images from that time are pretty crummy.  --Sean 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah but to be fair this image isn't exactly brilliant either... --Fir0002 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Yes no doubt this is rare, iconic etc - but there are only so many such images we should make FP - otherwise basically every war photo predating the 70's ends up as listed amongst wiki's finest. The 100% image is utterly useless - it's just been blown up with the scanner without providing anymore detail than the 800px thumbnail. So on quality grounds - despite historic exceptions - I don't think this image is up to FP standard --Fir0002 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a video of this test, and some others, if anyone wants to do the conversion. MER-C 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either per nom --Mbz1 14:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Whichever one looks best... Boom. 8thstar 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Fir. It seems like the temptation around these parts is to promote historical images on the basis that they're historical, which I don't agree with. The image quality is... okay, but not up to FP standards. Especially seeing that video footage of the event exists (which no doubt falls under the same license), no reason to promote a poor image, no matter how historic it is. SingCal 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm sorry - it's a great image for the articles, but it's so blurry and damaged that I think the actual resolution is about 450x300px or smaller. The movie, provided we get it at reasonable size, has to be at least as good as or better than that. Adam Cuerden talk 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fir. Sorry Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose not wow material H92110 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The video is compelling despite the poor quality, but the image by itself needs too much explaining. The image doesn't tell the story. Also, the article Operation Upshot-Knothole is weak, and the image used on that article is not the one we are discussing.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)