Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rail bombing at Siena

Rail bombing at Siena

 * Reason:A clear aerial photograph from one of the major air bombing campaigns of World War II. Operation Strangle had far reaching importance for subsequent United States military doctrine because it succeeded for reasons other than its primary mission: it had been intended to cut supply lines and force a German retreat.  Although the mission failed at that aim, its interference with tactical troop movement dealt a crippling blow to German defense.  Large high resolution file.  Restored version of Image:Italybombing.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in:Operation Strangle
 * Creator:United States Army Air Corps


 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. What an impressive and encyclopedic image. Nautica Shad es  16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2. What they said. Clegs (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC) i think alt 2 is the best, splits the difference of the concers raised by Fletcher. Clegs (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Support for Alt 2 It's a high quality scan that conveys encyclopedic value, but I want to play devil's advocate: (1) while I know it's not always needed to center on the subject of the image, there seems to be a ton of farmland on the left that is not really germane to the subject matter (crop the crops?); (2) the bottom left also appears more lightly exposed than the rest of the image; (3) while dramatic, the plumes obscure the damage done. Update: I like the new crop in Alt. 2, and per Spencer's comment, if the image is intended to show bombing, not damage, then I can't blame it for not showing damage. I wish it showed more, but it still seems like a rare find. Fletcher (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding 3, I think the image shows the bombing, not the damage inflicted by the bombing itself. Spencer  T♦C 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that while Fletcher has a point regarding the farmland, a certain amount enhances the composition by providing "quiet" to contrast and highlight the activity of the bombing. That's why the original was such an arresting image. I think Alt 1 is too tight a crop. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking I'd crop inside the long vertical autobahn on the left. Like I said I don't mind if the rail-yard is off-center, for the same reason you mention, but it just seemed like there was a a lot of cropland. Fletcher (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Alternate not alternate 2.Greener Cactus (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2. A high quality illustration of the subject. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2. Oppose original. I didn't even see what it was a picture of until I saw the alternates. Kaldari (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Alternate 2 Very impressive. Mastrchf  (t/c) 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This photo is encyclopedic, but it's not clear what it shows due to the smoke and the high altitude from which it was taken. There are many better quality bomb damage assessment photos than this one. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are. But are there better photos to illustrate Operation Strangle? Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got no idea. I don't think that the photo meets featured picture criteria 1 or 3. The photo is clearly useful, but it's not a great image IMO. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)