Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded.jpg

Hurricane Katrina flooding in New Orleans edit

New Orleans, Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (2005:08:29 17:24:22), showing Interstate 10 at West End Boulevard, looking towards Lake Pontchartrain.

edit 1 - despeckled, and slightly downsized

Reason: Striking image of important historical event.
Articles this image appears in: Hurricane Katrina, Pontchartrain Expressway.
Creator: AP Photo/U.S. Coast Guard, Petty Officer 2nd Class Kyle Niemi

Support as nominator — and Support Edit-1 Spikebrennan 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - historical significance outweighs relatively minor technical flaws like grain. Debivort 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are much better examples (much higher quality and more striking) on the NOAA page here. For examples: [1], [2], [3] — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-21 15:48Z

I was all excited for much better examples, but the ones you link are not sooo great - jpeg artifacty, narrow scope. Also, the nom'ed image is the iconic image from the disaster - the one that appeared on multiple newspaper page 1s. I still prefer it. Debivort 04:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures in User:Brian0918's links are good (and are less grainy), but I agree that the nominated one is more striking-- there is so much water in the foreground, the continuous band of water in the straight line upward illustrates the widespread scope of the flooding, and the fact that the image depicts a highway overpass illustrates the depth of the flooding. Admittedly, the nominated image is grainy.Spikebrennan 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Debivort Jellocube27 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture is too grainy, and there are higher res pictures online, as pointed out by Brian0918 Z1720 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the new picture, I still think it is too grainy. My oppose stands Z1720 06:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too grainy ^8thstar 21:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's not even close to the historical significance outweighing the negatives. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the edit, but I still don't think the overall quality is up to par and it's not something that can be edited. I just don't think it's that special of a photograph. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support --Vircabutar 08:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The technical problems seem easy to fix (basically grain reduction). Can someone upload a cleaned-up version? Thanxs. Jumping cheese 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit 1 Thanxs for fixing the pic up, Debivort! The edit contains much less noise and grain...and only a bit smaller. Not a perfect pic per se, but I believe the historical significance overrides any minor technical shortcomings. Very striking and encyclopedic. Jumping cheese 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Raven4x4x 08:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]