Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/U-2 Photo

U-2 Photo


This is one of the most infamous photos ever taken during the Cold War: A U.S. reconnaissance photograph of soviet missile site on Cuba, taken from a Lockheed U-2 spy plane following the Cuban missile crisis.


 * Nominate and support. TomStar81 02:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * support, If this is what you say it is then great! The historical importance of the pic far outweighs the fact that it is not particularly eye-pleasing. The method of the photo's capture is as important as it's subject. Witt y lama 09:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It meets some of the criteria listed here, but while its historical significance & value to the article (#5) are beyond question, I don't think that can override the other criteria that it misses on (1, 3 and 7).  A picture can be highly valuable to an article without being a featured picture. -- moondigger 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The first criteria is out of my hands, overhead photographs from this era were black and white and of meduim quality at best. This was the limit of technology, which is one reason why those reading the photos in the old days used magnifing glasses to ID the small stuff. I have no rebutal for criteria #3, this photo is not unique to the internet but it is certainly well recognized. As for criteria #7, this photo is the best illistration of the underlying cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most of the written material for the Cuban Missile Crisis include this particular photo or others like it becuase the overhead photos illistrated the sites in question. TomStar81 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * overhead photographs from this era were black and white and of meduim quality at best - Yes, which is why it doesn't meet some of the criteria, IMO. I have nothing against the image per se; it is very interesting.  I just don't think it represents the best of what Wikipedia has to offer, according to the guidelines.  Obviously others disagree with me, and that's fine. -- moondigger 00:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, the enormous historical significance overshadows any technical aspects. I've seen other versions, but this is the highest magnification I've seen so far. --Janke | Talk 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px|Support Edit]] Support Edit Very good historical value. I also uploaded a retouched image by me. — Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Historical - yes, pleasing to the eye - no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravedave (talk • contribs) 20:38, June 6, 2006 — Black and White  (TALKCONTRIBS)
 * Please read the featured picture criteria. It doesn't have to be pleasing to the eye if it's historically important. Examples: the first photograph, the only photograph of Chopin, the map of Lewis and Clark's expedition, the lowering of the flag on Zuikaku, and the Solvay conference of 1927.
 * Oppose. It has a lot of historical significance, but I dont think it is feature pic quality. --Geoffrey Gibson 05:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support IF the photograph is worked into an article on the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the caption explains the importance of the photograph. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-07 06:46
 * I added the image to the Cuban Missile Crisis and nuclear war articles. Janderk 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Frankly, I am astonished to see people discussing the quality of one of the most important U-2 spy plane images ever taken under incredible difficult conditions. The historical importance of this image is so immense that it should be selected if it were 10 times crappier. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the closest the world ever came to a nuclear war! But maybe we should just vote for the 156th bug/spider macro, hurricane picture or Haeckel drawing, because they look so cool. [Sorry for the rant] Janderk 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Side discussion related to quality vs. importance vs. rarity, etc moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/U-2 Photo.


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Support as per User:Janderk and and User:Brian0918. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4; &int;  &xi;  &phi;   09:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Original, Theres alot of historical significence in this picture. -- BWF89 12:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Original version. -- Samir   धर्म 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original for historical reasons as per above discussion. --jjron 09:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This particular scan looks like it is from a half-toned source, such as a textbook or magazine or so forth. It would be really nice if we could find one that didn't have the characteristic texture to it. (No, I don't think it is an artifact of the photography of the age or the circumstances; the text itself ought to be fairly crisp, and it isn't). --Fastfission 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Everyone seems to be voting for this image on the basis of historical significance, but no one has stated what that historical significance was. This picture was taken after the crisis was over and the sites were being dismantled, so it's not illustrating any of the peak critical moments of the crisis.  What's the source of this historical significance that everyone is claiming for the image?  You've stated that it was infamous but I can't see why; it wasn't a trigger for the crisis, only one of the many pictures taken to verify its resolution. Night Gyr 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but for some reason this particular photo has become the symbol of the Cuban missile crisis, to the point where most books and films use this particular image to illistrate the crisis. I am not sure why it, but every crisis seems to have its one defining picture and most people accept this partucular picture as the defining moment in the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the point where it has sometimes been incorrectly cited as taken during the conflict. TomStar81 18:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggest making note of this fact in the article, and adding a comment to the image info indicating when it was taken. -- moondigger 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with observations by moondigger. Besides, it's hard to see anything at all on it unless you enlarge it. Jens Nielsen 10:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(+10/-4) --moondigger 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)