Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpg

I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse[edit]

Reason: Highly encyclopedic image showing a close-up of a modern disaster. This was chosen as one of the 12 most powerful photos of 2007 on ABC News online: [1]
Articles this image appears in: I-35W Mississippi River bridge
Creator: Kevin Rofidal, United States Coast Guard

Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's a unique and valuable image, but with due respect to the ABC News poll, neither this nor many of the other 11 photos have much going in terms of technical or aesthetic quality. I find most of the rest of the collapse-day images in the bridge article at least as compelling as this one.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this was a poll by ABC News: the photos appear to have been chosen by the editorial staff. howcheng {chat} 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. That's what I meant to say: "with due respect to the ABC News list".--ragesoss (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It gets the green light on encyclopedic terms, although like Ragesoss, I doubt it's technical quality even compared to the other ones. A side question, why are all the cars numbered? Dengero (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was part of the investigation; the photographer (with whom I was in contact) was unsure as to exactly what was done with the numbering. howcheng {chat} 03:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not the best quality, but more or less a encyclopaedic image. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because "more or less" encyclopedic doesn't quite cut it for me; I want to see a high quality image. Lighting in this image is rather drab, and while it does show the damage well, I think I'd rather see a wider perspective showing more distinguishing features of this bridge on this river. One could for example mistake this image for earthquake damage were it not captioned. Fletcher (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit 1 uploaded. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 14:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit 2 uploaded. I don't think much more can be done for the picture. That being said, since it's in the bridge collapse article, and titled bridge collapse, I think the likelihood of it being mistaken for an earthquake is low. If is it mistaken for an an earthquake, that just underscores to me how bad the damage was. pschemp | talk 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. A good picture with encyclopedic value, but not especially interesting in terms of technical or aesthetic quality. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Though encyclopedic, low technical quality prevents me from supporting. Spencer^T♦^C 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busyness of the image and other issues aside as far as the best image on the subject I think this falls quite short, surely one of the collapsed bridge and the debris from that is readily available, more encyclopedic, and probably be of a good quality while more easily fulfilling encyclopedic obligation. Cat-five - talk 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For composition, I might prefer Image:I-35W-bridge collapse-Minneapolis-20070801.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think for a disaster of this magnitude, there is a place for both detail shots showing the intimate horror and large general shots showing the overall view. Both what happened to the bridge on a large scale and the experiences of the people in the cars on the bridge are valid parts of the event. Saying we can only feature a picture that is an overview is limiting what can be powerful information. pschemp | talk 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with Papa lima whisky; I think this pic has much better composition (but that's just me) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has EV but not enough else. Durova^Charge! 10:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]