Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USS San Fransisco (SSN 711) wrecked

USS San Fransisco (SSN 711) wrecked
Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2010 at 00:09:14 (UTC)
 * Reason:I think that it fits "iconic representation" well. Where else do you find a submarine with its front torn half open?
 * Articles in which this image appears:Seamount, USS San Francisco (SSN-711), List of submarine incidents since 2000, Submarine navigation
 * FP category for this image:history?
 * Creator:U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Mark Allen Leonesio.


 * Note: This image has been filed for FPC by myself at the request of Res Mar
 * Resolved, for now. Res Mar, who should recieve the credit as nominator. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks. Res Mar 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Unspectacular image. But highly interesting subject. Greg L (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, btw the alt isn't as sharp as the original.Res Mar 12:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the edit, then the opposite is the case. High pass sharpening, 5p with 75% opacity. I can crank it up more if you want *wide grin*. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Edit seems an improvement over the Orig, so I still support. Greg L (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's strange, it looks worse at thumbnail and unexpanded size, but better at full zoom oO. Nvm then. Res Mar 20:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I do not quite see what information value this image is supposed to have. It does not show the entire sub, so the focus supposedly is on the wrecked part. But there is a blue tarp on what I guess are the interesting/classified parts, and the overall resolution is disappointing. So you don't learn anything about the sub. What you learn is that there must have been an accident, but this is just a minor news item, and not an encyclopedic fact. A news item from over five years ago. --Dschwen 00:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I've had a think about this, and I agree with Dschwen. First of all, the size isn't that impressive, which is a shame, and secondly, although it's a good decorative image, it doesn't really illustrate anything- only that there was some damage. The extent of the damage is not clear, what caused the damage is not shown... It's a nice image to have, and it adds a bit of punch to the article, but I don't think it's really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't really explain it any better than Dschwen... It's a good picture, but doesn't really have any purpose other than to demonstrate a minor news item... Gazhiley (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Milburn. --Extra  9 9 9  (Contact me  +  contribs) 11:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)