Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joseph Kittinger's skydive

Joseph Kittinger's Skydive

This photo shows Joseph Kittinger's record-breaking skydive in 1960 from 102,800 feet (33,133 meters), with temperatures lower than -90°F (-67.7°C) and virtually no oxygen in the air. The record still stands today.

Reason: high-quality, breath-taking photo, and just plain awesome
Articles this image appears in: Joseph Kittinger; Project Excelsior
Creator: camera attached to the helium balloon he jumped from (technically counted as a US Air Force employee)
Nominator: Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)}

Support — Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it in such high resolution? Looks like it was oversampled by a scanner. But it's a very cool picture, especially knowing its significance (which is what featured pics should be). --⁪froth^{T C} 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Support due to notability. -- Alt iris Exeunt 06:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone who attempts the highest skydive have notability issues? Anyway, the nomination is about the quality and encyclopedic value, not the depicted person. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support (as uploader), would prefer better quality, but this is really one of those incredibly unique historical images. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Caption suggestion, Joseph Kittinger steps out of the gondola for Excelsior III, the highest skydive of all time, 102,800 feet (33,100 meters) above the Earth. The jump took place on 16 August 1960 as part of Project Excelsior, a series of tests of high-altitude parachute systems by the U.S. Air Force. His ascent took an hour and a half and set new records for manned ballooning altitude, and his descent reached a terminal velocity over 600 mph. The seal on his right glove failed, exposing him to the thin atmosphere and ambient temperatures below -90°F (-68°C).
Support A hiDEF photo that is encyclopedic and "awesome". S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's unique and significant, and a good picture, but it's not a great picture. The composition is extremely unbalanced, there is a lot of grain, and the colors are the extreme lighting makes the foreground (including the subject) tough to look at.--ragesoss 10:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think a better quality image could've been created in those circumstances.

Support based on encyclopedic value. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons above. —sd31415 (sign here) 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the clearest but hey it's not like he's going to do it again.--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support That made me laugh. Obviously, it wasn't taken with aesthetic value in mind-- nontheless, I am in full support of the picture: it's very unique and perfectly illustrative (not to mention satisfies size/technical requirements). Jellocube27 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high encyclopedic value. Noclip 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support For enc and hist. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historic picture, despite any (minor, in my opinion) technical shortcomings. — BillC^talk 00:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty cool picture plus it has historical significance. I think this picture would be great as a featured picture. User:Voshvoshka
Support As above. --Midnight Rider 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Not the prettiest pic out there, but the high encyclopedic value clearly makes up for it. Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 12:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Very encyclopedic, that guy had some guts.--Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quality isn't the best, but it's encyclopedic and is a shot that can't be taken again. --RandomOrca2 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, not of best quality Preetikapoor0 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...it was taken during the early 60's in extreme condition :p — Arjun 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support considering the historical significance of this picture and really pretty good technically. — Arjun 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Certainly not high def., more like blurry disposable camera crap. But the picture tells a story, it immediately converys whats going on. It gives context with the balloon gondola, and the far-away cloud sea, and a guy who obviously just jumped. It fulfills a key criteria FPs should have, it makes you curious, makes you want to know more. --Dschwen 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Dschwen. I hate making ditto votes, but he nailed it. This is indubitably among our best pictures. --Kizor 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow. What a photo! Interesting, encylopedic and historically significant! Ackatsis 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aside from the "photocrapped" stuff and high rez stuff, I find the subject matter really moving in this pic.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Far from great quality but enough encyclopedic value to support it. Actually, someone else jumped higher and survived (I forget who) but he was unconscious when he arrived on the ground, so it didn't count. There's also this French guy (of who I forget the name), who pans to beat the record this year. NauticaShad e s 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Kittinger-jump.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]