Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse[edit]

Original
Reason
This image is from a security camera that happened to be pointed at the I-35W Bridge at the time of its collapse. It adds significantly to the article by illustrating article content in a way that no still frame image of the disaters can. It also shows the horror of the collapse in a way that can not be conveyed by a still image photograph. For these reasons, I do believe that this image meets the minimum requirements for a Featured Picture, and so I have decided to nominate it.
Proposed caption
The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapsing on August 1, 2007. This was caught by a surveillance camera near the southwest corner of the bridge, overlooking the Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock.
Articles this image appears in
I-35W Mississippi River bridge
Creator
United States Army Corps of Engineers
  • Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The rarety and significance of the image probably outweigh the technical shortcomings. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I think this qualifies as an historic image, so I'm willing to overlook the obvious technical shortcomings, but I wonder if a better version might be made. Just counting as I watch, there seems to be about 23 frames to the animation. If the original frame rate supports it, a smoother animation could conceivably be made (you'd just have to grab more frames per second). For still pictures, bigger is often better; for GIF animation, more frames is often better. If this really is pretty much as smooth a conversion as possible, then I will likely support. Matt Deres 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original upload to en-wiki (since deleted as the current version was moved to commons) had a faster framerate and looked smoother, if I recall. A subsequent upload slowed it down so the few frames of the initial collapse could be seen better (or maybe to match actual real-life timing). This was a security camera though so it's likely these were the only frames taken by the original camera. Carl Lindberg 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are 26 frames in total. The original .gif was set at 100fps, probably as a program default. I adjusted the animation to fit a copy of the video found on youtube, at approximately 1.5 fps. The images themselves appear to be cropped from the original in order to single out the bridge, it appears that some postprocessing was also applied. If we can procure a copy of the original Army Corps of Engineers footage, a higher quality version of this animation could be created. The possible image improvements include a better crop, deinterlacing, adding a timestamp to the sequence (the framerate right now is an approximation) and possibly enhancing a higher-than-native resolution version of the images. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per User:CillanXC--Eva bd 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Oppose, until a better version is created. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: This is considered as a historic image, though a faster framerate would improve the image. Chris! my talk 06:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Support It qualifies as a featured picture and it is important. Why not. Chris! my talk 22:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should we use an unrealistic framerate? Using a faster framerate would misrepresent the original footage and the amount of time it took for the bridge to come down. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The GIF appears to be in slow motion to me; particularly the first few frames where we actually see the bridge bending and falling, though that's probably just a false impression caused by the low frame rate. Matt Deres 12:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The security cam had a very low framerate of about 1.5fps, see [1] (& note the obscured, but still decipherable timestamp at the bottom) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support per Chrishomingtang. One 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very encyclopedic pic. However, I find the animated GIF file inappropriate after at least eight people have died in the tragedy. The wounds are still very fresh. It's almost like a mini version of the towers collapsing. An animated GIF can easily be created and it'll surely be encyclopedic, but is it in good taste? How about animated GIF of executions, police beatings, and other unsettling subjects? I'm concerned we are opening a potentially explosive can of worms if this nomination is promoted. Sorry. Jumping cheese 08:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we have the content disclaimer. MER-C 10:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly are not censored. I have personally watched this over 20 times, not because I am ghoulish, but because the engineering questions interest me and this suggests some of the potential causes. --Dhartung | Talk 11:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content disclaimer doesn't really works if the pic is on the main page for everyone to see. Considering the amount of outcry from the dead dolphin pic, imagine the negative response from this pic. And the issue of taste still bothers me. Jumping cheese 18:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It might not be the best technically or esthetically, but it sure is very compelling, supremely important and entirely encyclopedic. As for the bad taste issue, we've got pictures of a man falling from the WTC, autofellatio, and a variety of nasty-looking diseases on real people. And rightly so. They represent the truth. Shockingly, perhaps, but necessarily. Repressing images like this one is purely and simply censorship, and I won't support it, no matter how recent the disaster nor how grim the photo.-- The_socialist talk? 09:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is widely understood to be an Army Corps of Engineers video, but from the beginning it was presented by CNN et al. as "anonymous" because the provider was uncertain if they had permission. I don't know if that has any bearing on featuring the video. It just concerns me that it might. --Dhartung | Talk 11:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Washington Post story on it here. It was leaked originally, but was distributed to all media outlets a little while later. As it turns out, it is public domain and so no one has any rights over it, so no issues at all. Carl Lindberg 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This is extremely hard-to-get footage. -KULSHRAX 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support--Mbz1 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Support per nom. Debivort 18:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Spikebrennan 19:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is invalid due to a subsequent vote made by this user on 13:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC). Chicago god 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would look better if the first and last frames were held for a few moments before continuing, I think. Not too long, but.... Adam Cuerden talk 01:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - good picture. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This is the only image of the bridge while it was collapsing. -JWGreen 03:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An event that happened less than a week ago is now considered "historical"? Please. This wasn't even the most newsworthy event of the week, despite the mainstream media's coverage of it. Since, in my opinion, this event is not currently "historical" (nor should it be deemed such anytime soon), this animated picture does not live up to most of the featured picture criteria. Chicago god 07:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Though it seems awfully small... Adam Cuerden talk 09:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as historic imagery of an important event. Quality concerns are trumped. --Dhartung | Talk 14:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ludraman 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Horrible quality, and it ain't "historic" to me. The collapse of the Tay bridge (1879, memorized memorialized in two poems, one English, one German) or the fall of the First Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940, a classical example of mechanical resonance) are historic. This one is just tragic. Lupo 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Tacoma narrows did not fail by resonance but by Aeroelastic Flutter. See its page :First Tacoma Narrows Bridge Diego Torquemada (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed that for you. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the bigger picture here (pun intended). Chicago god 09:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Chicago god and Lupo summed it up well. Chris.B 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The historical (in)significance does not overcome the horrible quality.--Svetovid 11:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I won't even speak about the poor quality of the image. What i can't understand is why some people consider this historical ? The bridge collapse is a sad but insignificant accident : There are far worse accidents than this one every year in every country (fire, plane crash, hurricane, etc...). Moreover, this accident will probably not have any notable consequence (like a law, or a new way to design bridges, to prevent this kind of accident). This means nobody will remember this accident in 10 years (unlike 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina). Actually, if you really want to propose this picture as a FP, I think we should discuss it in 6 months (or even a year) and see if people still care about it. Ksempac 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This means nobody will remember this accident in 10 years..." Try selling that to the Twin Cities region, the people on the bridge when it collapsed, the rescue workers who aided the victims, and to the people who losted loved ones in the collapse. This most certainly will be remebered in 10 years; how it will be remebered is another story altogather. PS: You really ought rant a little about the poor picture quality; this comes off as a comment on the person instead of the image, and I would rather not have you vote disregarded. That is of couse, just a suggestion, but one which I make in good faith. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I m sorry but 50 families (that's the number of cars on the bridge at that time) and a hundred rescue workers (who probably see lot of deaths and accidents) are "nothing". We're 6 billions on Earth, accidents and catastrophes happen nearly everyday, this one is only one of many others. May i recall you that a plane crashed on July 19th in Sao Paulo (one of the countless plane accident every year) with 200 deaths ? Do you remember it now ? Maybe. Will you remember it in 10 years or even a year ? No. Same for this bridge accident. I repeat, unless this accident has an important consequence (such as a law), this will only ends up in a "list of notable bridge accidents" and that's all. Ksempac 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah right. Nobody remembers the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse either, obviously. It doesn't even has its own article! Circeus 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Speaking of which, why doesn't someone make an animated GIF out of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge movie (Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge#Film_of_collapse) and nominate that? That one actually is historically significant, having happened 67 years ago, and from my memory the film is of much better quality. Spebudmak 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - per Chicago god, Lupo and Ksempac. Certainly not FP quality or significance. This is just another news story that will die out before long, unlike 9/11 or other major events. Thruppence 12:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. This is another news story that will quickly get forgotten, not speaking about quality. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - while the event may not be of grand historic significance, it is a unique sort of disaster in the size of the bridge and the circumstances of its collapse; plus, this image is itself historical, as very few such events get caught on camera. Radagast 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - many people are saying that the actual event isn't all that significant - so what? The Feature Picture criteria do not demand that the object or even being illustrated be significant - only that the illustration depict it encyclopedically. Obviously the bridge collapse is going to get a WP article - therefore the subject and the image pass notability criteria!
The only question left is, is it technically / aesthetically good enough? Please remember that exceptions to the size rule are made in the case of animations. Debivort 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to arrange the ~27 frames of this image into a 3x9 array of images, it would make a single image 981x1800 pixels in size; this single image would carry all the same information. However, the bottom half of all the frames is uninteresting and does not change at all throughout the animation; so it could easily be cropped and you would be left with an image of size 981x900 -- under the image minimum of 1000 pixels on a side. I don't mean to be picky and I wouldn't oppose solely for this reason, but from an 'information content' point of view this animation does not have what a featured picture is expected to have. Spebudmak 03:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose– The quality of this image isn't good enough to warrant a featured picture. The event not withstanding in historical "significance," other pictures of the actual event are far more superior. Even though the size of a featured pictured doesn't apply to an animation, this animation just isn't good enough to be a featured picture. Notorious4life 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I spent quite some time staring at this animation before it was nominated as a featured picture. The presence of a good, comprehensive article about the bridge collapse along with phenomenally informative images (primarily this video, but also the still photos) is what makes Wikipedia so useful to me. I think this is exactly the kind of nomination that is impressive and informative instead of aesthetically pleasing, that is small and of poor technical quality but still worthy of being featured. It is "historical" because it can't, ever, be taken again. Still images of the remains of the World Trade center after 9/11 are not the same, because they sat there, smoldered, and had lots of really excellent images taken of them, so only a very high quality image should be featured. If I were just browsing through the FPs, this would capture my attention, and that's a ringing endorsement. Enuja 00:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Uniqueness far outweight any quality concern. Circeus 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this lousy picture that documents an unimportant accident. Five friggin' people are confirmed dead, get a grip of yourself. Had this happened in Burma it'd got nothing but a notice on CNN and be forgotten after two days. Stop trying to push your "national tragedies" up the face of the entire world. Go away. --Servant Saber 10:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Historical insignificance is no mitigation for the very mediocre quality. Lycaon 11:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Illustrates the event in question far better than pages and pages of text ever could. Technical concerns are secondary to this in my mind. --Falcorian (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly strong oppose I don't care if the gif was of the actual Big Bang or Moses parting the sea; this is an awful image as far as quality is concerned. I won't argue the significance of the image; I'm merely stating that it is in no way is up to FP standards. -- Kicking222 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support A picture paints a thousand words.Wikipete 21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the two comments I made above plus I think it makes sense to let some time go by before promoting something of questionable quality like this. Spebudmak 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't normally vote here, but decided to this time. This seems to me to be virtually unique footage -- is there any other video of any bridge collapsing unexpectedly? Tacoma Narrows (which had zero fatalities) is the only other one I can think of, and that was rocking for some time before it eventually came down, and that video is played frequently even today. This video will give armchair engineers something to discuss and speculate on for some time while the investigation to the cause continues. While the historical significance is yet to be determined, one would think that there will be at least some lasting change due to it (be it a design flaw not to repeat, or better care when closing lanes on a bridge to not cause imbalances, better inspection techniques, a shift of money into fixing existing bridges, or other). While the quality is poor, I think it shows something never caught on film before (and here's hoping we never get another chance with another bridge). Carl Lindberg 05:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 21 Support and 14 oppose so far. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The quality is too low, and only part of the bridge is seen. The Tacoma Narrows film is spectacular (someone nominate that!), this one is not. --Janke | Talk 08:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - An interesting event in engineering terms but from a historical point of view, this is of very little importance. Since the quality is pretty appalling and the viewpoint also pretty poor, the only reason this might become featured is if its historical significance and irreplaceability makes it a spectacularly important piece of footage. I'm sorry, but although this is "fresh" at the moment having just made the news and having a fair bit of shock value, particularly in the US, it just isn't anywhere near featureworthy from a world perspective. Sad and worrying, yes - of such lasting historical importance to justify featuring a really crap video - no. --YFB ¿ 09:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This image is of a noteworthy event and definitely one of the only videos showing a real bridge collapse which makes it unique and shocking enough to be featured. Gold Nitrate 04:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment. I think this is unique and important enough to forgive the serious image quality issues. My comment is that the bridge looks like it's going down in slow motion-- does there exist sufficient data to add a time counter, so that it's possible to tell how many seconds actually elapsed during the event covered by the video? Spikebrennan 13:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why are we discussing the importance of the picture when what we should think about is it uniqueness. A featured picture is regard as 'wikipedia's best work.' Judging the picture according the Featured picture criteria, I think it qualifies every one of them. First, although this picture is not in the highest quality, but "If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed." Second regarding the resolution, it says "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." Third, it is definitely wikipedia’s best work even if it is a shocking image. Fourth, it has a free license. Fifth, it definitely adds value the article. And it is accurate and neutral. Finally, if no change is made on the picture, then it qualifies the last criteria of “avoid inappropriate digital manipulation”. Chris! my talk 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"it is definitely wikipedia’s best work"...best work for what ? to illustrate this particular accident ? with a 5 death toll, this particular accident will probably be forgotten pretty soon. If you consider this best work for "bridge accident", then you should check pictures/footage from the Tacoma Bridge accident which are far better. Moreover, Tacoma Bridge has historical signifiance because engineers learned lessons from this accident and it is still used as an exemple of bad design. It doesn't look like this will be the case for the I-35 accident Ksempac 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Spikebrennan > You already voted above. Ksempac 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC) No, he only commented above. This is his first vote. Chris! my talk 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ksempac, you have countered your own logic: no one died at Tacoma, yet the bridge disaster is still vividly remembered all these years later. Moreover, there has been a sudden dash across the united states to check bridges of the same type as the one in minasota that collapsed. Even with this low death toll, the collapse will have a ripple effect across the board. Simply because we can not see that ripple effect doesn't mean that it does not exist; you have applied your own logic to the situation and elected to ingore the obvious importance of the event. What you choose to do with your own logic is one thing, but to oppose an image becuase you deem the event unimportant is stupid. If you insist that this bridge collpase will not be remebered 10 years from now than find a bridge collapse that no one has heard of and cite it instead; until then, all you have succeded in doing is proving the supporting camp's points. -- Anita
Concur. You clearly miss the point of a featured picture. A featured picture doesn't have to illustrate something important. Chris! my talk 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Poor quality images do not qualify as examples of Wikipedia's best work simply because no better image of their subject is available! ~ Veledan • | T | 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read the featured picture criteria. Wikipedia's best work doesn't have to be good quality if no better image is available. Chris! my talk 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Chris, it is actually you whose interpretation of the criteria is incorrect. It has been well established over countless nominations that "we don't have a better picture" is not a reason to feature a substandard one. It is perfectly valid to oppose as Veledan has done, if in their opinion the importance/uniqueness of the event does not outweigh the poor quality of the footage. We don't have to have a featured picture of every subject. --YFB ¿ 02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in other cases, the "we don't have a better picture" is not a reason to feature a picture simply because they can retake a better picture on the subject. But in this case, we cannot replace this picture because the bridge is gone. Perhaps that is just me, but I honestly think that this picture is not ugly or of poor quality. Also I am not saying Veledan's opinion is not valid, or yours. I am just expressing my opinion. Chris! my talk 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Informative animation depicting a rare subject Jellocube27 02:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I think there are a lot of people getting caught up in the whole spur-of-the-moment-let's-nominate-it type thing, understandably seeing as it has just happened and it was a fatal accident. This however is historically significant, and of much better quality too. Schcambo 12:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I get the feeling someone's thinking "If we make this featured, it's a memorial to the people that died". Well, I'm sorry to put a downer on that. I have every sympathy for the families of the people that died, but this isn't the way to say it. There's nothing excellent or featured about this gif at all. --Deskana (banana) 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose While this is definitely relevant to the article on the bridge, it's nowhere near high enough quality or historical relevance to merit featured status. Yes, a bridge fell, and there was a big media circus over it, and it ended within what, four, five days? Yes, I'm sure it's still fresh in a lot of minds, and yes I'm sure the locals care about it, but there are far better candidates out there for featuring.Lucid 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Deskana. Cacophony 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I count 24 Support and 21 oppose so far. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although as we all know, this is not a straight numerical vote, so tallies are essentially meaningless to the outcome. --YFB ¿ 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since some of the votes have been cast in spite of the media coverage this event received. On the other hand, there's a clear consensus to promote the Tacoma Narrows video... ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 02:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/_I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge_collapse&oldid=1144432022"