Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/U-2 Photo

U-2 Photo

This is one of the most infamous photos ever taken during the Cold War: A U.S. reconnaissance photograph of soviet missile site on Cuba, taken from a Lockheed U-2 spy plane following the Cuban missile crisis.

Nominate and support. TomStar81 02:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support, If this is what you say it is then great! The historical importance of the pic far outweighs the fact that it is not particularly eye-pleasing. The method of the photo's capture is as important as it's subject. Witt y lama 09:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It meets some of the criteria listed here, but while its historical significance & value to the article (#5) are beyond question, I don't think that can override the other criteria that it misses on (1, 3 and 7). A picture can be highly valuable to an article without being a featured picture. -- moondigger 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first criteria is out of my hands, overhead photographs from this era were black and white and of meduim quality at best. This was the limit of technology, which is one reason why those reading the photos in the old days used magnifing glasses to ID the small stuff. I have no rebutal for criteria #3, this photo is not unique to the internet but it is certainly well recognized. As for criteria #7, this photo is the best illistration of the underlying cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most of the written material for the Cuban Missile Crisis include this particular photo or others like it becuase the overhead photos illistrated the sites in question. TomStar81 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - overhead photographs from this era were black and white and of meduim quality at best - Yes, which is why it doesn't meet some of the criteria, IMO. I have nothing against the image per se; it is very interesting. I just don't think it represents the best of what Wikipedia has to offer, according to the guidelines. Obviously others disagree with me, and that's fine. -- moondigger 00:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the enormous historical significance overshadows any technical aspects. I've seen other versions, but this is the highest magnification I've seen so far. --Janke | Talk 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit Very good historical value. I also uploaded a retouched image by me. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Historical - yes, pleasing to the eye - no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravedave (talk • contribs) 20:38, June 6, 2006 (UTC) —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS)
Oppose. It has a lot of historical significance, but I dont think it is feature pic quality. --Geoffrey Gibson 05:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support IF the photograph is worked into an article on the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the caption explains the importance of the photograph. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-07 06:46

I added the image to the Cuban Missile Crisis and nuclear war articles. Janderk 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Frankly, I am astonished to see people discussing the quality of one of the most important U-2 spy plane images ever taken under incredible difficult conditions. The historical importance of this image is so immense that it should be selected if it were 10 times crappier. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the closest the world ever came to a nuclear war! But maybe we should just vote for the 156th bug/spider macro, hurricane picture or Haeckel drawing, because they look so cool. [Sorry for the rant] Janderk 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Janderk, apparently you are willing to allow the photograph's historical importance to override all other considerations. I am not. For me, a featured image should be one that people react positively to whether they've read the captions and know its history or not. This one requires somebody to know the historical context before it is likely to impress. Pictures are a visual medium, and as such should impress visually (and immediately) if they are to be featured pictures. It won't really matter in the end... it looks like this one will reach a concensus of support despite a few 'oppose' votes. -- moondigger 12:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought. Most of the featured pictures I've seen add significance and meaning to the articles they adorn. It's the opposite for this one... the article adds significance and meaning to the picture that the picture lacks all on its own. -- moondigger 12:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the fact that this is the only image of its kind outweighs the relative unattractivness of the pic. This is EXACTLY what is meant by the caveat in criteria 1 for featured pictures, i.e. "Be of high quality....The exception to this rule is the rarity or importance of the image being depicted." Witt y lama 12:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the only image of its kind, nor is it unique to Wikipedia. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There are many others. -- moondigger 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per User:Janderk and and User:Brian0918. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 09:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, Theres alot of historical significence in this picture. -- BWF89 12:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]