Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/050817-N-3488C-028.jpg

F/A-18 Hornet Taking Off

Since the previous Hornet (also taking off) is failing, I thought I would try this one. This one may not look eye-catching as the other one, but it is much more detailed and encyclopedic. This was taken Navy Photographer's Mate 3^rd Class Jonathan Chandler. On a side note, the uploader was French, so I had a fun time trying to translating words like "featured" and "promote".

• Nominate and support. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I support either the orginal or edit, with slight preference for the original, because the edit is a bit oversharpened. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — This image really isn't sharp enough, especially considering the resolution. ♠ SG →Talk 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? I would say it was pretty sharp myself. Anyway, I woulnd't consider that ruling it out completely. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't agree with the sharpness, how about the JPEG artifacts? I like the shot itself, but from a technical point of view, I can't support the image. ♠ SG →Talk 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Oppose edit 1 — Sharpening it proves my point: too many JPEG artifacts. ♠ SG →Talk 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support One word: WOW! |
  AndonicO 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. This is the sort of image that supports the takeoff article! Clear, sharp (relatively), and pretty good composition/framing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. A nice, and uncommon view of and F/A-18. Shows the landing gear and side of the plane quite well. This image is teh in F/A-18 article and should be judged on its place there, and it is good. say1988 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Yes I like this image a lot more than the one I took. Blind14 19:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support From an encyclopedic view point I would prefer to see more of the catapult launch area, so that poeple could better judge the short distance the plane has to go from zero to airborne, and this photo cuts that part out; however, it is nicely detailed and does show a take off rather well. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support anyone have a guess how close its rear wheels are to the deck? Debivort 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd say about a yard. |
  AndonicO 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support EXCELLENT find. This is everything I was looking for (and opposed the other for missing). Gonna' put in take-off as well. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Illustrates take-off, and sharp enough IMO - doniv 14:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Very unique photo that you don't see every day, excellent positioning and timingUser:Nicholas.tan 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's a little blurry, though I do suppose that the subject is moving at a *fairly* high rate of travel. --Tewy 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent timing.
  sikander 18:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per the above comments. RFerreira 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either with preference for Edit 1. As above --Fir0002 08:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no sense of motion (it looks like it's just floating there) Strong oppose edit 1, the brightening has left the shadows looking extremely unnatural. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support PPGMD 14:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:050817-N-3488C-028.jpg --Fir0002 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]