Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2014 at 07:29:04 (UTC)

Reason

This is an informative, encyclopedic illustration with colorful aesthetic quality of a "daring" insertion and extraction procedure.

Articles in which this image appears

Royal Marines, Rigid-hulled inflatable boat, Boeing Chinook (UK variants)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

"LA PHOT HAMISH BURKE" / Royal Navy

• Support as nominator – Pine ^✉ 07:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Support - The UK Ministry of Defence publishes around 50 photographs a month on its images archive, representing what they feel are the best of the photography library of interest to the public and using their API I upload these as they become available; it would be great to have an exemplar photograph to FP status in order to showcase the other 3,300 photographs in our collection, most having excellent potential to illustrate articles. This photograph was part of the Royal Navy Peregrine Trophy photography competition. As well as aesthetically pleasing in composition and colour, this would have been a technically challenging shot, to get a clear silhouette directly against the low sunlight. -- Fæ ( talk) 08:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Pretty, but the dark helicopter and boat against the sunset basically obscures all the EV in the image: it's not a clear image of the helicopter and boat combination Nick-D ( talk) 09:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As an example of what I'm getting at, File:Army CH-47 helicopter on July 16, 2008.jpg and File:US Navy 080716-N-4500G-040 An Army CH-47 helicopter attached to the 159th Aviation Regiment lifts a Naval Special Warfare 11-meter rigid-hull Inflatable boat (RHIB) during a maritime external air transporation system training e.jpg depict the same military tactic much more clearly (though these images are definitely less eye-grabbing) Nick-D ( talk) 11:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - Perfect for Commons, but the lack of EV sinks this nom here. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Crisco. I'm happy to see a UK military image considering the number of US military images that we have, but I feel that well-made artistic decisions have here limited the documentary value of the photograph. J Milburn ( talk) 15:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As a comparison, would you be inclined to support this image, which is in use to illustrate hot-starting and is a dramatic and interesting photograph in its own right? This is used to illustrate the parent category, and might be a good alternative example to promote wider use of the batch upload set. -- Fæ ( talk) 18:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Rather off-topic, but that pic (showing a piston-engine Spitfire) is a poor choice for the hot start article, which deals entirely with turboprop and jet engines. Sca ( talk) 21:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

That's probably more of an issue that the article needs expanding into a wider discussion of the different uses of "hot start". -- Fæ ( talk) 23:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose... In addition to the other above reasons for opposition, the image quality itself is poor and the image has clearly been 'enhanced' with a saturation boost. It may have been a technically challenging shot but it's been ruined by fiddling after the event. Featured Pictures should be documentary quality, with the accuracy and integrity that is associated with it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  Out of interest, what test are you using to check for saturation changes? I can find no record of it. -- Fæ ( talk) 11:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Open the image in a photo editor and look at the RGB Histogram. He's right. Adding that bit of drama is probably OK for Commons but here not so much. Saffron Blaze ( talk) 18:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Even without looking at the RGB histogram, I've seen enough photos of sunsets to know what kind of colours and saturation the sky gets. Also, the edges have been 'sharpened' and there is an unpleasant halo around them. It actually seems to have been upsampled too, possibly because this isn't the original framing and it was cropped and enlarged to reach MoD's image resolution specifications. Just guesswork on my part. If so though, it would explain the particularly obvious sharpening and softness. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

It would be useful to have a page of recommended tests for nominators to consider before putting an image forward to FPC. I would expect the photograph was cropped, indeed I gave it a slight rotational correction after this was requested on Commons which itself required a minor crop. As for the other points, it is not possible to prove a negative and as I was not the photographer (nor even the nominator here), I cannot provide any assurance otherwise. -- Fæ ( talk) 08:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose other opposes. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 00:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Not Promoted -- Sven Manguard  Wha? 01:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy/SNOW closing this Sven Manguard  Wha? 01:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply