Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpeg

File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpeg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 05:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flickr user TheMachineStops - uploaded by UpstateNYer - edited by UpstateNYer - nominated by King of Hearts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the only picture we have of the immediate impact of the United 175. The low resolution is mitigated by the uniqueness of the event.
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try FP at English wikipedia. W.S. 01:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Well, September 11th affected the entire world. It still is. The image does have major EV. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ valuable but not excellent --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the duplicate vote. --99of9 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it fits the limits by FP nominations then I support. Well in 2001 there were no 15 mpix digital cameras and this attack was nothink like "I take 15 shots of this frog and I can choose the best then". --Aktron (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aktron Tomer T (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the size is insufficient, below 1 MP --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read FPX carefully, it is only to be used when there are no support votes other than the nominator. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, the guidlines mention that "rules can be broken", and Aktron specified above some reasonable arguments of why the formal guidlines don't fit this case. Also, note that you have already made a vote about the discussed picture above. Tomer T (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) That the resolution is under 1 MP I realized after my vote (2) I am surprised that the rules here are so easygoing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable but not up to current standards. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable, and deserves some leeway as a historical action shot. But its shortfalls on size and composition are still too severe to be an FP IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All my thoughs have already been mentioned above. --Ximonic (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]