Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/WTC (23 September 2001)

WTC (23 September 2001)

Reason: HUGE, detailed and clear image. Shows the medium-term aftermath of the tower's destruction. Slightly grainy, but overridden by historic and encyclopaedic value.
Proposed caption: An aerial photo of the World Trade Center complex, 12 days after its destruction. This image, as taken by a NOAA Cessna Citation from an altitude of one kilometer, shows NYC firefighters and construction equipment surrounding the debris created by the attack. Also noticeable is how the shrapnel caused further structural damage on the surrounding buildings.
Articles this image appears in: crops of the WTC buildings are used in their respective articles
Creator: NOAA/U.S. Army JPSD

Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 04:49, Monday, 10 September 2007 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support wow - finally a stunning 9-11 image. Debivort 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gives a very real sense of the devistation, highly useful image--Childzy ¤ Talk 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, important image of an historic event's effects. Unfortunately this crashed both my browser AND my image viewer. Would a downsample (and maybe a wee sharpen) help with the graininess? It would make t more accessible as well. --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow...though I agree with Dhartung, this just about killed my browser. Wouldn't mind a slight downsample. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 Much more accessible. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Support original per comments by User:SG below. CillaИ ♦ XC 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, this thing is GINORMOUS. Enc, unrepeatable, and great timing. We couldn't rush ship this to the Main Page, could we?--HereToHelp 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask Howcheng, he's in charge of WP:POTD. NauticaShad e s 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Huge and encyclopedic image. NauticaShad e s 02:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Bridgecross 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely stunning and encyclopedic pic. However, at 14mb, the pic is a bit too unwieldy to handle (yes, too high of a resolution also becomes a problem). As mentioned by Dhartung and Cillan, my browser crashed when I tried to view the full res version. I had to download it and then open it to view. I would prefer a downsized sample...which would also completely eliminate any of the minor grain issues. It'll be the perfect pic for the seventh anniversary...since it missed this year's. Jumping cheese 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While historically quite relevant, quality is mediocre to say the least. Noise reduction and resampling (or maybe even only the latter) may help to improve crispness of the image. Lycaon 05:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I note issues on the huge file size, but the enyclopedic value of this is excellent. Pedro | Chat 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Agree with Lycaon. I don't see the need for such an enormous file and the aerial photograph could be easily improved by downsampling and de-noising. I wonder if a rectified version is available (meaning a version corrected for the conical projectionn geometric distortion) - Alvesgaspar 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little bit of editing would make this a better picture. Anybody up to the task? Calibas 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Support for size, clarity, and historical reasons. Yes, I think this must definitely be a featured picture. -- Alt iris Exeunt 09:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Zinglon! I've just downloaded the full image and viewed it! What kind of detail level is this? Insane quality? Even Google Earth can't provide such a high-quality photo! It's historical, it's of insane quality, it's in the public domain, it's over here; my vote has been changed to Ultra-Extreme Support for the Original Image. This image is priceless and must definitely be a featured picture! -- Alt iris Exeunt 10:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have uploaded Edit 1, with the following changes:

Canvas size cut in half
JPEG compression at 90%
File size at 7MB (half of original)

I was able to open and manipulate (scroll) this version in my browser, though it was still sluggish and thrashy. Probably someone with a gamer's machine (lots of memory) will have zero problems, but I believe I have a pretty "average" PC. There is of course less detail in this one, but it's still closer in than most online aerial photograph (e.g. Google Maps). I skipped a sharpen step as most of what I objected to was really haze (I assume). It's sharp in some places, gauzy in others. I also tweaked the caption (American English, etc.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit, support original — The edit does not do anything except increase JPEG artifacts and reduce the image size. The original should be the FP, and a smaller version (~3-4MP) is always created for images of this magnitude for front page use (from where a link is supplied to the full image). ♠ SG →Talk 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that always the case? Nobody mentioned that above. In that case, I withdraw my edit and will leave creation of a smaller version to the pros. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit, support original — Full Ack SG. The fullsize version does not vindicate this kind of downsampling, it only leads to information loss.--Dschwen 09:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the photo does not "Add value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." since it's not in any articles. Instead, we have Image:6-wtc-photo.jpg which is cropped (I think too tightly cropped) and used in the September 11, 2001 attacks article. But, this version viewed in the article as a thumbnail isn't great either. The actual WTC site and surrounding blocks are only a portion of the image. I suggest cropping the image, with a bounding box including the Woolworth Building on the northeast, Trinity Church on the south, and the World Financial Center on the west. That would make the image just right, and suitable for putting in the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Image:Aerial photo of WTC groundzero.jpg is another variation of the proposed FPC, with the black border cropped out. This image is used in the World Trade Center site article. Though, I think a somewhat tighter crop as I proposed is better.` A crop will not sacrifice image resolution, though will somewhat lower the size of the file, which may help people. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Ah, Aude makes a very valid argument. The image is not being used in any articles. Until the image is put to good use, it cannot be promoted per FPC requirements. ♠ SG →Talk 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Didn't notice MER-C's comment about the non-bordered version. ♠ SG →Talk 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can either replace the non-bordered version with the nominated version, or we can promote the non-bordered version as per my comment below. MER-C 13:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support both--Mbz1 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

I suppose you don't mind if I promoted the non-bordered one instead, as to sidestep the concerns about "not being in any articles"? MER-C 10:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, it's probably best to promote the original (due to the extra detail), but link to the cropped version and appropriate articles on the image description. ♠ SG →Talk 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble uploading my cropped version. I'll try uploading one more time. Regardless, making this original file the FP is fine with me, so long as we can use a cropped version in articles. --Aude (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support A fine image. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wtc-photo.jpg MER-C 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]