Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hemel Hempstead fuel explosion map

Hemel Hempstead fuel explosion map

In this satellite photo the pollution from the explosions, appearing black, is spreading in two main streams from the explosion site at the apex of the inverted 'v'.

One that made me say "wow". From the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, although I haven't found this picture on their website; the ones on [1] are rather less impressive.

Nominate and support. - Mark ¹ 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little bit small and grainy; would you be able to upload a larger one? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is on the small side, yes; I've looked for a higher-res version, but no luck so far. Mark¹ 10:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose per my comments above and comments below. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - To me this picture is the most boring example of the smoke plume available. There are so many spectacular shots taken of the smoke plume, some which look ominous and unnatural, this one evokes zero emotion. - Hahnchen 01:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good picture should never need explaining. Without the "London" tag and a little commentary, this image would make no sense. D e nni ☯ 02:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An image from ground level is in my view much more likely to evoke emotion in a reader. This does show the extend of the plume, and is no doubt informative, but the image simply isn't stunning enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. What am I supposed to be looking at? The black blob...? ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As above. Enochlau 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Calderwood 09:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- There are obvious Photoshop artifacts in the upper left as well. Debivort 04:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]