Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FEMA - 5399 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-28-2001 in New York.jpg

File:FEMA - 5399 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-28-2001 in New York.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 14:41:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andrea Booher/FEMA - uploaded by BotMultichillT (batch-upload) - nominated by Juliancolton -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I uploaded about 20.000 images in this batch upload and this certainly one of the best images. Multichill (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for uploading and the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like this picture, but IMHO low quality for FP, sorry --Phyrexian (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Love the composition, but Phyrexian is right about the quality not being the best. Just my opinion, but it looks a little soft and washed out. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comments. I'm not sure I see these issues, however. It looks rather sharp from where I'm sitting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No problem. Always happy to give some useful feedback. I'm viewing it on a 24 inch LCD, adjusted as per the direction on the commons calibration page. All LCDs are different, so it might just be my screen. That's why I'm voting neutral, rather than opposing. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the composition far outweighs any negatives of perceived low quality (although it looks fine to me). AlexAH (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird perspective effect and as Phyrexian. Lycaon (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor contrast.--Avala (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 10:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, unclear subject. Maedin\^talk 14:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the subject is the overall atmosphere following the attacks, rather than a specific subject. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is incredible. The quality is amazing, as well as the sharpness. But for a second, you should not look at the quality, but the story. This picture illustrates the event that happened, and shows the heroic men and women who worked endlessly at ground zero and will never be forgotten - mainly, because of pictures like these. Delvaldawgz 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very outstanding, and nice resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical