Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:IAEA Experts at Fukushima (02813336).jpg

File:IAEA Experts at Fukushima (02813336).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 18:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by Greg Webb / IAEA, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is certainly no time to pose, so quite good quality. High educational value, showing the working conditions, and the environment with the damaged building in the background. Please notice that this image is used in many places on the Internet. -- Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Very good picture under very adverse and historically significant circumstances. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one has some bonus for ER. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you mean "EV" as in Educational Value, "ER" usually means something else even if such facilities certainly were involved in the accident. --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think this is anything special. The composition, framing and posing are all weak, nor is it clear where they are. This photo from the set is far superior IMO, clearly showing a control room of some facility, and some seriously flurorescent air filters! -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. This to me looks like what a news outlet's photo editor would want from one of their photographers, but the conditions under which it was taken notwithstanding that does not make it an FP. If it were the iconic picture of the incident, yes maybe for historical value (it may be widely reproduced online, but this is the first time I've seen it) but since it isn't, I oppose. The one Colin points to is, indeed, better. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support KennyOMG (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. This is related to an important event, but it just shows the experts leaving - not at work. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1 – Lucas ^T 08:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry