Great depiction of the 9/11 attacks; September 11, 2001 attacks

• Nominate and support. - Buc 22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Although I like the picture and it is encyclopedic, I do not think it is hiDEF enough. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think what Sharkface means is that it's a little blurry, as if it was either originally out of focus or has been upsampled. However, it is a historically important photo, so I Support. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mild object. A salient blurring, beautiful otherwise. I think it may be retouched. --Brand спойт 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The photo was taken with a Nikon D1H with a resolution of 2,012 × 1,324. This image is 3000x2400 so it has been upsampled (presumably to allow for larger prints) but this has resulted in a softer image at 100% resolution. I agree, it is very poor quality even considering this, but if you downsample it back to the minimum requirements, it is sharp enough. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Soft focus, low quality in general, surely this must have been photographed alot, we can do better. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Way too stale... MER-C 11:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)