Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fires in Israel (October 7)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2024 at 21:47:05 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Decent quality satellite photograph (5,699 × 3,206 pixels). Passes all eight parts of FP criteria and has high historical value for the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Image has also been used by multiple media outlets, showing the value of it. Example being this CNN article, which uses the image as the news article "cover" image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- List:
- 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (Infobox image)
- Israel–Hamas war (One of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia)
- Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war
- Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/October 1 to 7, 2023 (Image for the Israel–Hamas war, 24th most viewed article).
- Usage on 30+ additional Wikipedia articles and pages.
- FP category for this image
- History/War
- Creator
- Pierre Markuse (With Copernicus Programme satellite data)
- Support as nominator – The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Is it possible to remove the caption and logo? – Howard🌽33 07:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, would say that's the minimal action before it could be considered for promotion. I'm also concerned that fire does not appear to be a major part of the incidents. There's some discussion of homes being set on fire, but not much, so it needs more clarity about what's set fires, what's incidental fire from rockets, etc. Were all the fires set by Hamas, or are some from Israeli forces? If the former, all's well, but... I mean, maybe it's great, but from a non-expert view... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikipedia should avoid possible controversy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – Visual information not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. (Agree with Charles – could be misconstrued as POV.) – Sca (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawn — Clearly not ready for FP yet due to logo and caption on image. Noting I highly disagree with it having the potential to be “POV”, given the event related to this image ended over 3 months ago, so “POV” issues are merely opinions without policy backing. Nonetheless, not FP ready. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- IMO, main page play (presentation) might be misconstrued as POV. -- Sca (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a bit more explanation of the image. If the caption is misleading, that could be POV, and the article, as I said, talks about fires in a few isolated cases, but not enough to really explain the image. It's not very well documented beyond "This is a satellite view from this day" and "You can see fires in it"; I think it reasonable to expect more, like linking at least most of the fires to incidents. Because this is worse than your average primary source as it stands: its only value is in the interpretation, so there's a risk of Original Research. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 11:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I processed this image and while I am grateful for the nomination and see no POV problems I support the decision to not make this a featured picture.
- The description on the image is limited to what basically says "fires can be seen" on purpose because from a single satellite image, without further local context, it is almost impossible to determine the cause of a fire. Could have been a mortar shell, a rocket, lightning, electrical failure, or someone with a lighter setting a fire. While this picture certainly has some historical value, it should go along with a well researched news article in proper context. And though you could draw conclusions from the sudden appearance of so many fires at once, especially compared to the average day, this would still leave room for a lot of interpretation.
- Additionally the image being a composite of natural colors and infrared, it should be noted that the "fires" that can be seen here are just areas of high IR emissions, which is a well-established technique to detect fires from space. However, this is not what the region would look like from space, as most, if not all of these fires were too small to be seen clearly (or at all) in natural colors from space. That is another thing that I believe would have to be communicated to the average viewer and makes using an image like this one even more cumbersome. PierreMarkuse (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)