Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Car crash

Car crash, Tokyo, Japan

Reason: A great, clear image of a car crash. Composition is great, IMO.
Articles this image appears in: side collision, car crash
Creator: Shuets Udono

Support as nominator ----Torsodog^Talk 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous nomination --Muhammad(talk) 18:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn, you beat me to it. I like the picture, but that last nom was only about half a year ago. --Dschwen 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can the license plates be blurred? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have doubts about its encyclopedic value, as this appears to be a fairly minor crash. Surely there are images of more severe accidents? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people seem to be hung up on the severity of the car accident? How would a more severe accident make it MORE relevant? A car accident is a car accident. --Torsodog^Talk 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because even at full resolution, you can hardly see a crash at all. It would have been equally as effective to line up two vehicles side-by-side and take a photo of it. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm worried about the fact that the license plates and one of the people's faces are clearly visible. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I strongly suggest blurring the plates FP or not, as it can lead to law enforcement based on Internet regulations. ZooFari

I don't know how relevant this is here on Wikipedia, but on the commons this picture is alright per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --Torsodog^Talk 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with blurring the license plates. Durova^Charge! 05:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I voted against in the last nom, but I think I like it now. Good EV, good impact. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mostlyharmless. Durova^Charge! 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In thumbnail siize as used in articles, it looks like cars parked. A severe accident would show better wreckage. --Muhammad(talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurred numberplate is still completely readable to me. I'd consider whiting it out like this image: File:2006 Hyundai Getz SX (Australia).jpg.Noodle snacks (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This accident almost looks staged to me. I don't think it does a particularly good job of illustrating Car Accident. Given how common automobile accidents are, I expect that we could get a better picture fairly easily. I'd actually prefer a video, though, since it could show the actual crash rather than just the aftermath. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good EV, good aesthetically too. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but I just don't see the encyclopedic value in this. The technical quality is good, however, and VP might be more appropriate. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly confused by this oppose. VP is for cases where encyclopaedic value > technical value (not the other way around), and I don't see how you consider there to be no EV in this image. Could you expand, please? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake then, sorry. I thought VP was for images with good technical quality but low EV. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised how strong I came over. Sorry, it wasn't intentional. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 05:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose A striking composition but I just don't think it's very educational. I note if one thinks this image deserves recognition, it is already featured on Commons. Fletcher (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]