Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:WTC-remnant.jpg
A powerful image of the remnants of the World Trade Center, September 14, 2001. Used in Collapse of the World Trade Center. Photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd class Jim Watson (U.S. Navy).
- Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, the remains are out of focus, and most of the picture (including a digger which would help the image) is heavily shadowed. It would be a great pucture for the article Back of a fireman's head, but in my opinion, is only a mediocre picture of the WTC ruins - Jack (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support, iconic, historical, very very encyclopedic. But has many technical failings, including shadow, soft focus, underexposed midground, and
while it does meet the 1000 pixel limit, I prefer that both dimensions reach atlest 1000pixels.HighInBC 22:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)- Comment. I have just uploaded a bigger version (1312x2000) Mikeo 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support Well framed. PPGMD 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The WTC remnants are out of focus. Focus is on the fireman. Mikeo 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)- Neutral. Despite all the drawbacks, this picture is an important one. Mikeo 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A good picture but the two dark buildings are a distraction, the image is a bit grainy and a little too small. Arad 00:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here is the high resolution version: Image:WTC-remnant_highres.jpg. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Blurry, fireman detracts from it. I see nothing special abotu it. say1988 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Framing is just awfull.Nnfolz 00:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support The picture is good but the buldozer behind the firefighter ruins it for me. --Midnight Rider 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Framing with the buildings is nice, but other details (blurriness, shadow, head in front of truck) not so great. Also, the presence of the firefighter at first made me assume it was from Sep 11 itself, not the subsequent cleanup, which somehow makes it feel almost staged. --Davepape 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is a similar version without the fireman, and better focus. Maybe you're gonna like this one better. Mikeo 06:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to nominate that one first, but the one with the firefighter was being used in the article and IMHO his presence adds significantly to the picture. Without him, it's just a ruined building. He is a human presence and although you can't see his reaction, it only makes you wonder/imagine what it might be. howcheng {chat} 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly the human presence add scale that adds to the photo, if a photo editor for the New York Times was choosing between the two photos for his above the fold picture slot, he would pick the photo nominated, not the alternate suggested. PPGMD 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to nominate that one first, but the one with the firefighter was being used in the article and IMHO his presence adds significantly to the picture. Without him, it's just a ruined building. He is a human presence and although you can't see his reaction, it only makes you wonder/imagine what it might be. howcheng {chat} 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is a similar version without the fireman, and better focus. Maybe you're gonna like this one better. Mikeo 06:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support An important historic relic which overrides concerns about quality. That being said, I find the framing and presence of the firefighter and equipment to add to, not detract from, the interest of the photo. SteveHopson 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jack. --KFP 10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Edit looks better without distracting objects in the way, but its too dark and tilted.Nnfolz 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per users above. - Darwinek 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support The firefighter and front end loader add to this highly significant image. This one needs to be the September 11th image of the day! I oppose the altered image. Royalbroil 01:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, it's not altered; just a different shot from the same photographer. howcheng {chat} 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Framing makes it look like the fireman is looking at a picture of the building. For something so widely photographed it seems to be asking a lot to overlook the many flaws. --jjron 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per Jack. --HarisM 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jack. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 04:05 (UTC)
- Support This image is an inspiring reminder of what happened on 9/11. Both images capture the destruction of what happened on that day. Although I actually prefer the original Image. I feel that the bulldozer and firefighter remind us of what an undertaking it was to save people and clean up the area. —bfissa September 9, 2006, 14:48 (UTC)
- Support version with firefighter --I think it adds more to the effect of the image to have the firefighter--ZeWrestler Talk 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm concernd that people are voting on the topic rather than on the image it self. This posting sumerizes my worries: "An important historic relic which overrides concerns about quality". IMO if a picture is poorly framed it shouldn't be supported regardless of how emotional it may be. On another note: the edit looks blurry.Nnfolz 07:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
