Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soviet HBomb

Soviet Hydrogen bomb
First Soviet test of a thermonuclear device.

Not the biggest of images, but it is of large historical significance. This is a picture of the first Soviet test of a hydrogen bomb. To top it off, it is a jaw-dropping image in its own right: if Stanley Kubrick made Independence Day, this is what it'd look like.


 * Nominate and support. - zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not believe the historical value overcomes the many faults of the shot. What at first just looks like some black and white blobs. It is poorly framed and cut-off. As well as the very small size. Yes I redognize historical photos are given some leeway, but we have to draw a line somewhere, and not just feature every picture of any historical event. say1988 02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Compare to Featured picture candidates/Zuikaku sinking. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * a) I see that as much better quality. b) I am on the fence as to whether I actually would have supported that or not. say1988 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * a) I see that as much better quality. b) I am on the fence as to whether I actually would have supported that or not. say1988 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm in agreement with Say1988 about the particular qualities of this image. I want to add something as well.  Photos such as this one need not be featured pictures to confer value on an article.  It has value even if it doesn't end up featured. Photos that truly add nothing to an article will be culled over time, or replaced with photos that do add value.  So the choice isn't between "featured" and "worthless."  It's a choice between "featured" and "valuable but not featured."  -- moondigger 03:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with Say1988--K.C. Tang 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm uncomfortable promoting an image to Featured status when its licence is in the process of becoming deprecated. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 09:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, I like it. --Golbez 08:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's a neat picture, even if it's not perfect. I imagine it was difficult taking such a shot. Cab02 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Unless there is a better picture of this event, this should be featured. I'm a strong believer in the "Historical significance" argument. Judging solely on aesthetics is what Commons is for - we should take greater account of the importance of the shot (so long as it meets the requirements of size, rez...). Witt y lama 13:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose too small and per all oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childzy (talk • contribs)
 * Support per Witty lama. --Nebular110 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Per Witty Lama.  Polit i  c  a  l   Mind  02:38, July 12, 2006 (UTC).
 * Oppose. Sure, it's a balance between historicity and aesthetics.  But it doesn't need to be featured to add value to Wikipedia.  In this case, the historicity doesn't quite outweigh size and aesthetics issues.--ragesoss 03:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - disputed copyright status. Jkelly 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with ragesoss. -Ravedave 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--Fir0002 05:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)