Tornado damage
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 09:18:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality photograph, good resolution, and very high EV. One of the best, if not the best, images of tornado damage on Wikipedia. Meets criteria 4 and 6 since it was created by FEMA.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tornado intensity and damage, Early-May 2010 tornado outbreak
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
- Creator
- Win Henderson/FEMA
- Support as nominator --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose See my comment on Commons wrt better crop. Also not been in article for a week. Not always wise to nominate on Commons and Wikipedia at same time -- best to pick one and address any issues before considering the other. -- Colin°Talk 12:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wish people wouldn't treat the seven-day suggestion as a requirement, or, if they did, wouldn't only apply it to new FPC users, when I have constantly got away with not waiting a week whenever I decided the usage was obvious enough I didn't need to, or I thought that the article was so rarely edited that a week wouldn't matter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- What makes you think I treat it as a requirement? I have in the past commented that this suggestion is not a requirement. But here it is good advice and I feel the nominator has been hasty. Look at the Tornado intensity and damage article. The previous lead image was well annotated wrt "intensity and damage" and showed damage to nature rather than a house. The article is well illustrated with damaged houses, and those other pictures are chosen to show off each scale of damage. So although this image is reasonable quality, one might make a good argument that the original lead was better and the tornado experts might feel that the other images illustrate aspects of building-damage better than this one. Colin°Talk 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's fair enough, then. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize about the week thing...I didn't notice anywhere where that was stated, although I very well could have overlooked it given the time of day I was nominating this. As a meteorologist, I would say that this image does a much better job of conveying tornado damage...while damage to nature is more common, oftentimes the better display of damage is when buildings are involved. It is very difficult to tell the difference between EF3 and EF5 level damage to foliage, whereas there is a substantial difference to building damage. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- What makes you think I treat it as a requirement? I have in the past commented that this suggestion is not a requirement. But here it is good advice and I feel the nominator has been hasty. Look at the Tornado intensity and damage article. The previous lead image was well annotated wrt "intensity and damage" and showed damage to nature rather than a house. The article is well illustrated with damaged houses, and those other pictures are chosen to show off each scale of damage. So although this image is reasonable quality, one might make a good argument that the original lead was better and the tornado experts might feel that the other images illustrate aspects of building-damage better than this one. Colin°Talk 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wish people wouldn't treat the seven-day suggestion as a requirement, or, if they did, wouldn't only apply it to new FPC users, when I have constantly got away with not waiting a week whenever I decided the usage was obvious enough I didn't need to, or I thought that the article was so rarely edited that a week wouldn't matter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Like Colin, I'd like to see if this sticks in the article. Frankly, I think the tree one is a more effective photograph. Chick Bowen 18:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)