Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:USS enterprise-bomb hit-Bat eastern Solomons.jpg

USS enterprise-bomb hit-Bat eastern Solomons[edit]

Articles: Battle of the Eastern Solomons, USS Enterprise (CV-6)
Creator: Marion Riley (US Navy photographer) [1]
Reason: Although a somewhat grainy picture, it stands as one of the most dramatic action shots of the Pacific War. The photographer, Marion Riley, happened to snap the picture just as the bomb was detonating nearby. Although Riley's camera equipment was damaged by the explosion, Riley was uninjured.
Nominated by: Cla68 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Cla68 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comment The extended caption you've got going is a bit confusing. I'd say that the extended background information on the image page is more than enough to build a really good Picture of the Day extended caption, and you don't have to worry about writing a caption, but I'm actually really confused by the information on the image page. Part of it reads "Note: According to the original photo caption, this explosion killed the photographer, Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Robert F. Read. However, Morison's "History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II" (volume 5, page 97) states that Read was killed by the bomb that had earlier hit the after starboard 5"/38 gun gallery, which can be seen burning in the upper left." So, the Read took the picture AFTER he died? For some reason, I'm skeptical. Was this picture taken by someone other than Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Robert F. Read? I'm confused. Does anyone have the reference to check this out? Enuja 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC) That makes so much more sense! I know the picture is grainy and tiny, but it certainly does show an actual exploding bomb on an actual air craft carrier, and the explosion certainly has a "wow" factor, so I'm going to support this image. Enuja 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified the image's story on the image page and shortened the photo caption. If still unclear, let me know and I'll work on it some more. Cla68 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big Fat No Absolutely not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chickitychina`1`1 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 May 2007. J Are you green? 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate; your vote gives no reason for an oppose. J Are you green? 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What Chris said. I have no idea what is going on. It is a black and white picture of an explosion...how is that worthy of featured status??Chickitychina`1`1 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Historical significance. There aren't very many pictures like this that actually show munitions at the very moment of hitting a ship during combat, especially from 65 years ago. Cla68 08:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way to small, no very clear what is even going on in the pic.Chris H 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean small here in the nomination page or the original image is too small? Cla68 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does anyone have a sense of the rarity of an image like this? If there are no alternatives it may be worth a support. Or, are there better scans of this type of picture? gren グレン 07:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked around the Internet again to be sure, and found a slightly clearer, but smaller, image and re-uploaded it. Cla68 08:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. It's not the best of images, but seeing as it's of historical significance and impossible to reproduce unless we do the war over, I think it's worth a support. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating Image, may be grainy but is amazing! Booksworm Talk to me! 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Historicity alone is not enough to merit FP status; this image is too small, too grainy, and has too little context to adequately illustrate its subject. Yes, it is a powerful image of something that is rarely caught on film, but it falls well short of the typical standards we expect even from historically significant images. And while this may be a unique photograph, it does not depict a unique historical event (except in the sense that this particular ship was only hit once by this particular bomb).--ragesoss 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can get a better shot of a U.S. Carrier being bombed please let me know, I'll be there with my camera and the DHS to get the shot. Cat-five - talk 06:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The picture is historical, and I would be more than happy to give full support to a larger scan. J Are you green? 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weakly, it definitely has massive issues but the fact that it's a one of a kind unrepeateable in (hopefully) the course of the future shot and falls under the historical images leeway. Cat-five - talk 06:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This just isn't one of Wikipedia's finest pictures. The fact that it is historically signficant cannot make up for the fact that it is a poor photograph. Wikipediarul e s 2221 06:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the quality is too bad and some American carrier being hit by a bomb is not historically significant enough to excuse the poor quality.--Svetovid 08:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't even tell what's going on in this photo. What are the things on the left of the photo? Is the flat part the aircraft carrier? These are the sort of questions I shouldn't have to be asking about a featured picture. Calliopejen1 04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This image doesn't really illustrate either of the cited articles in a particularly encyclopedic way-- are there other images that might be even more appropriate places to put this image? Spikebrennan 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]