North America's Busiest Highway: Evacuated.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 03:50:13 (UTC)

Reason

A rare photograph showing King's Highway 401, the busiest highway in North America, with only one vehicle on the road. This high quality, high resolution photograph was taken during the 2008 Toronto Propane Explosion when part of the highway was closed as a safety concern due to the highway's proximity to the main blasts.

This image also does an excellent job displaying the collector / express system used along Highway 401's widest and busiest sections. It's deserted state reminds me of the wide, deserted roads in North Korea. The only difference is that Highway 401 is normally clogged with traffic. This picture is truly an anomaly.

In addition, this is the third picture of Highway 401 to be nominated. Learning from the constructive comments from the other two nominees, perhaps this third time will be a charm!

Articles in which this image appears

Ontario Highway 401 and the 2008 Toronto Propane Explosion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Kenny Louie

• Support as nominator --Haljackey (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Might I suggest asking the author for a coloured shot? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - The picture really is impressive, and I love the photo contrast. It really showed how serious the event was at the time. wishfulanthony (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: I'm really not seeing why this should be in greyscale. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've contacted the author who said he will be searching for a colour photo later today. The grayscale will be replaced by the colour photo if he can find it. Haljackey (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Oppose I agree - this photo was taken in 2008 and the greyscale detracts greatly from its EV. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Strong oppose- there is absolutely no reason for this to be in greyscale. We should not be promoting modern images from standard cameras that are greyscale for no particular reason. J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I've contacted the author for a colour image and he will be searching for it later today. If he can find it, I will replace the image with a colour photo. Haljackey (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reply Here is an example of the same section in colour from the author, however this was not taken during the propane explosion event. Do you like it better? I have also contacted the author for a colour shot of the B&W one. Haljackey (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I find this to be an interesting and unusual image of a highway. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I feel the black and white nature of the photo helps further the seriousness of the situation. Keep in mind that nothing with colour exists on the highway (except maybe that one car, but it could be Silver), so there really is no EV lost to the lack of colour. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We shouldn't be in the business of "furthering the seriousness of the situation"- we're in the business of reporting how things were. We set a dangerous precedent if we start allowing random artistic adjustments to the image. We have no modern greyscale FPs, and I've seen plenty not promoted purely because they're greyscale. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria has point #8 (Avoid inappropriate digital manipulation) that, among other things, states “Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.” It’s safe to say that all digital cameras (this image was shot with a Canon EOS 5D) shoot in color. Are we to ban grayscale images from hereon if the photographer’s or wikipedian’s reasoning for converting to grayscale happened to be nothing more than “ ‘cause I like-ta”? Deciding to use grayscale instead of color is always purely aesthetic choice. If one likes an image in grayscale, great. If not: So sad / too bad and we vote ‘oppose.” Greg L (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Good point. We don't want to make the picture seem too serious, or too heavily edited. I've been in touch with the author and he will be looking for the colour photo later on today. It will replace the grayscale image if he can find it. Haljackey (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Is the community now supposed to poo-poo grayscale in the digital camera-age? Grayscale might not be best for this image. Or maybe it is best. But logic founded on the notion that grayscale is inherently too heavily edited makes no sense and there is no wording in FPC that indicates such (and for good reason). Ansel Adams always shot in black & white. He did so freeways too. Your post suggests that artists who shoot with digital cameras (color) and then covert to grayscale should be frowned upon from hereon. Uhmm… I’m not buying that logic. Sorry. If you don’t like this image in grayscale, that’s fine (and your “opinion”). But there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with grayscale images as a class for FPCs. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • It's fine that certain known photographers shoot in greyscale- they often do all sorts of other things to their pictures (certain lenses, tinting, whatever). That's great- we'll report upon them, their methods and their work as appropriate. However, we aren't here for some kind of mass artistic project, we're here to build an encyclopedia. We should be in the business of documenting things as they are, were and will be, not make random artistic choices. If you want to illustrate the road, show a picture of the road, don't show somebody's artsy view of the road. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose A huge explosion kills people. A highway is evacuated for safety reasons. Does a picture of the empty highway significantly add to the article on the explosion? IMHO, no. A highway is constantly busy. Does a picture of it during evacuation for safety reasons significantly add to the article on the highway? IMHO, no. I admit the picture is impressive, but I'm trying to say I don't see any real EV. [And I also disagree with greyscale (here, not in general): it makes one think the picture was taken in the fifties.] --Desiderius82 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, if you don't think this photo significantly adds to the Highway 401 article, may I ask which photos in the article significantly add to it? This highway IS constantly busy (most likely the busiest highway in the world but that claim is unsourced) so seeing it empty is a rare feat indeed. As for the grayscale, I am in the process of getting it changed to a colour image since it seems to be highly demanded here. Haljackey (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • By "significantly" I obviously (OK, maybe not that obviously) mean "significantly enough to be granted FP status". --Desiderius82 (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If it's constantly so busy, I can't really see why an empty road is such a great illustration of it. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • There are already ~20 that show it busy. This one contrasts that. It was a notable event in the history of the highway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Sounds more like a news event than an encyclopaedic event - maybe if the explosion happened on the highway itself, and even better if it was pictured, it would make more sense. But a nearby incident that closed the highway...hmmm. --jjron (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: The gray scale is distracting and gives a first impression that the photo is old, which is not the case. The EV is thus affected. Not convinced of its EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I'll withdraw this submit a colour nomination, unless someone is able to change my mind. It seems many like the photo but oppose the grayscale. Haljackey (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• New: By the way, here's the colour picture. Does it look good enough to start a new nomination? Let me know. Haljackey (talk)
  • Don't withdraw this nom. Just upload that one as an Alternative and we'll decide in this nom. I'd definitely support. NauticaShades 09:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Alternatively, a new nom could be started. Either way, yeah, upload it, replace it in the articles and see how it goes. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Alternative Ok, I've uploaded the color version.NauticaShades 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • • Personally, I would contact all opponents of this nom to make sure they understand the drastic change to the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative was leaning support of B&W.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Alternative for same reasons as for the original. --Desiderius82 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Oppose Alternative, Oppose orig... Same as per Desiderius... It's great for the second article quoted about the incident, but not about highway 401... Definately prefer colour version, but not enough EV for main article for a support... Gazhiley (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the colour version has been uploaded. I don't think it will be withdrawn after all. Still, I think a new nomination could commence for the colour version to give this candiate ample time to get enough support to reach featured picture status. What do you think? If not, am I allowed to strike out all the votes before the colour alternative was uploaded? That would minimize confusion and remind past voters to resupport or reoppose. Haljackey (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am neutral on the colour version at the moment, but I do feel it should replace the greyscale image in the two articles. The greyscale image should not be being used in that way. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The colour image has now replaced the grayscale, and has taken it's place in the two articles. Haljackey (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative and Support Color Edit: I found the original color to be too dark and uploaded an edited version. I think this picture clearly passes all requirements for FP status based on its use to illustrate 2008 Toronto propane explosion. An evacuated highway is very interesting looking. To achieve a consensus, my ‘support vote’ may apply to either color picture. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sky is now blown out on your color edit, that alone probably rules it out from FP criteria... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree. I like the colour version better, not the colour edit. Haljackey (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Do you support the colour version? (Not the edit.) If so can you put that below? Keeps this organized. Haljackey (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative as I didn't nominate or upload it. This nomination is also starting to become a bit messy. It might need to be organized, having separate sections for the the three photos or have a new nomination submitted entirely. What do you think? Haljackey (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seperate sections wouldn't be great, although I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a new nomination. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We'll see how this goes. If things fair well for the new colour picture, a new nomination might not even be needed. I tried to organize this a bit, and put a line where the colour version was uploaded. By the way, are you still neutral or do you support the colour alternative now? If so can you put it at the bottom of the votes? This way it stays somewhat organized. Haljackey (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - The color edit unfortunately looks overexposed. Juliancolton (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You beat me to it - was just about to point out extremely blown highlights especially the car park bottom left... Gazhiley (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, I'm a bit concerned about that as well Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative (NOT color edit, which has blown out highlights). I think the rarity of this event, the closure of such a major highway, adds significant EV to the 2008 Toronto Propane Explosion article. It's probably not very important of an image though for the highway's own article, but enough it could remain if that article since it does have a section about the explosion and the image does illustrate the seriousness of the explosion to close off such a major artery. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative - the color version looks great, but, it could lose its real impact compared to the original version. The colored picture shows great effort, though, which looks nice. wishfulanthony (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.88.174 (talk) Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative (Not edited version) High quality composition and very technical shot illustrating a rare occurrence on (possibly) the world's busiest highway. If all the fugly mugshots like the one below this are worthy (that one aside because its quality was crummy), then I do not see why this is not. Besides the opening picture (of the explosion), this one has the highest EV in 2008 Toronto Propane Explosion. In the article on the highway, it shows the closure of one of its busiest sections in its entirety (the section through Toronto has never been fully closed since it was built in the 1950s), and provides a key illustration to an entire section of the article devoted to it! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good point. Perhaps that could be added to the Highway 401 article? A stronger description of the event relative to the highway would make this picture carry greater weight in the article. Haljackey (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative, but not the edit. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative - The alternative is colored nicely, making it more realistic than adding too much brightness. –CG^Talk 04:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Evacuated Highway 401 Color.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome, thank you very much! Do you know what day it maight be displayed on the main page? I'm not sure if I have any power to suggest a date, but August 10, 2010 will be the second anniversary of the Toronto Propane Explosion. Displaying it then would be a good contrast to the event, especially if the event appears on the "On this day..." section on the main page. If it is shown on a earlier or later date, I don't really care. I'm just happy that the picture reached featured picture status. Thanks again all your support everyone, you made this happen! Haljackey (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try talking to Howcheng. He more or less runs WP:POTD and might be able to sort it out : ) NauticaShades 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right, thanks a lot! Haljackey (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]