Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Smoke grenade

Smoke grenade[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 11:08:54 (UTC)

Reason: Excellent action shot with high EV, well depicting the topic.
Articles in which this image appears: Smoke grenade
FP category for this image: Culture and lifestyle
Creator: Roman Bonnefoy

Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the darkness an effect of the smoke grenade, or an effect of this being shot at 1/1,250? This looks (maybe) a wee underexposed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken in winter late afternoon with high ISO. Various levels of smoke are distinguishable. --ELEKHH^T 11:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not doubting that it would be quite dark. However, this doesn't look like a 5 p.m. shot in November. This looks to be 6:30-ish. I'll link to a small, quick edit I made, adjusting the exposure just slightly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dropbox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)#[reply]
With due respect Crisco, how would you know what 5pm in Paris in November looks like unless you live there (or somewhere similar)? ;-) A quick google search reveals what I suspected: It was taken a few minutes after sunset, so with the addition of the thick smoke, it's completely understandable that it's dark. By 6:30pm, it would be completely dark, with only street lighting. In any case, I don't actually see much of a difference between your edit and the original. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd; in Lightroom it looked a bit lighter (exposure +0.2)... or did the export not work correctly? Anyways, although technically this has a little bit of blurring, I'd expect that to be (at least in part) due to the smoke. As such, I'd like to ~~Support~~ this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2014(UTC)

Striking support per Diliff's concerns below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support it is good to have pictures about controversial topics too. Hafspajen (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good illustrative value. Tomer T (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It does occur to me that perhaps all the smoke is due to the flares, and not an actual smoke grenade. In which case, it would not be representative in illustrating the article. The image caption, translated from French, is: "Smoke in a demonstration in Paris". It does not imply where the smoke has come from, and the only visible source of smoke in the image is definitely the flares. If I'm missing something here, I'm happy to reconsider. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one has a flare - although I am not a Smoke grenade expert, but it looks like those flares spit out quite a lot of smoke. Hafspajen (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree, both flares and smoke grenades spit out flames and smoke. But as far as I know, smoke grenades aren't meant to be held as they burn, whereas flares are. What we see in the image are definitely flares. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "fumigène" as a noun means 'smoke making device'. Since those in the image are used by demonstrators, they are likely self-made and hence might work differently. It is clear from the image that the purpose of the devices is making smoke, and the image illustrates that effect, which is where the EV of the image lies. --ELEKHH^T 01:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except the connotations of smoke grenade and fumigène are slightly different. This may illustrate fumigène well... but it may not illustrate smoke grenade. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the scope of the article. The English wikipedia does not have currently a generic article on smoke making devices, and en:smoke grenade is the most extensive article on the subject, also linking to fr:fumigène. Note that similarly the German wiki article de:Rauchgranate includes in its scope all other similar smoke making devices (regardless of form), although it links back to en:Smoke bomb. As I am not expert on the subject I am not going to sort this out, but the issue seems to me to be with the article, not the image. --ELEKHH^T 01:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the problem is not with the image, or the image caption. It's with the EV as it relates to the article it supposedly illustrates. A grenade is by definition designed to be thrown, not held. There is a clear difference in design and purpose between a smoke grenade (intended to be thrown and to generate smoke, with light as an incidental by-product) and a the type of flare in the image (intended to be held and to generate light, with smoke as an incidental by-product). The flare article calls them fusees. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Terminology aside, I don't see much point in running an 'action' shot of an event that took place almost six years ago, given that the pic. isn't going to illustrate an entry on said event anyway. Sca (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The event itself is not the point though. If the image illustrated a smoke grenade effectively, it wouldn't matter if it was at an event 6 years ago or 40 years ago. They haven't changed substantially. It's more than just terminology though, flares and smoke grenades have very different functions, potentially very different chemistry, and very different results. There are separate articles for each on the English Wikipedia. The problem is that in the German and French Wikipedia (where the image originated), the two subjects are combined in a 'smoke making device' article, which might suit their needs, but not ours IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think this more or less random (news-type) pic. has much EV, either. If we're going to illustrate Smoke grenade, we should show an actual smoke grenade burning & smoking away. Those look more like road flares to me. Sca (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it illustrated flare, it would have EV as it would show how a flare could be used in practice. Not just the device itself. So I disagree with you there, but in any case, it doesn't matter, because it's not illustrating the right article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think road flares usually smoke less and are brighter, no?. Sca (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mixed up with smoke from flares, can also not see any smoke grenade.--Theamazo (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]