Today we are going to talk about Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded.jpg. This is a topic that has captured the attention of many people in recent years. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded.jpg has become something that we cannot ignore, whether because of its impact on society or on our personal lives. It is a topic that has generated emotions and debates, and has led to reflection on its importance in daily life. Many experts have studied and analyzed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded.jpg from different perspectives, and today we want to delve into its meaning, scope and significance. We hope that this article gives you a broader and clearer vision about Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded.jpg and invites you to reflect and delve into its importance in our current world.
Comment I think there are much better examples (much higher quality and more striking) on the NOAA page here. For examples: , , — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-21 15:48Z
I was all excited for much better examples, but the ones you link are not sooo great - jpeg artifacty, narrow scope. Also, the nom'ed image is the iconic image from the disaster - the one that appeared on multiple newspaper page 1s. I still prefer it. Debivort04:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The pictures in User:Brian0918's links are good (and are less grainy), but I agree that the nominated one is more striking-- there is so much water in the foreground, the continuous band of water in the straight line upward illustrates the widespread scope of the flooding, and the fact that the image depicts a highway overpass illustrates the depth of the flooding. Admittedly, the nominated image is grainy.Spikebrennan14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit, but I still don't think the overall quality is up to par and it's not something that can be edited. I just don't think it's that special of a photograph. -- Phoenix2(holla)06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The technical problems seem easy to fix (basically grain reduction). Can someone upload a cleaned-up version? Thanxs. Jumpingcheese19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 1 Thanxs for fixing the pic up, Debivort! The edit contains much less noise and grain...and only a bit smaller. Not a perfect pic per se, but I believe the historical significance overrides any minor technical shortcomings. Very striking and encyclopedic. Jumpingcheese19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)