Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg

File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg

•  Info created by Jarod Hodge (US Navy) - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like this picure. But the resolution is too low. Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment What? It's over 12Mpx! How much larger do you want it to be?! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • And you supported this one, which is one third the size! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes I sopport Spider Nephila clavata 0911.jpg. The resolution of that picture is enough. Bu in this picture the shapes of planes aren't sharp. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Resolution is low or file size? --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! Quality is not ideal, however as a whole it is fantastic view. Rare shot -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak SupportMaybe Takabeg is talking about the fact that none of the planes is very focused and there are also a lot of artefacts, especially in the sky.--Silversmith Hewwo 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Suggestive and rare image --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Great picture, but spoilt by overzealous JPEG compression. 1.22 MB for 12 Mpix is simply ridiculous, and it shows. JPEG artifacts are all over the picture. -- JovanCormac 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice composition, but too much JPEG artifacts and noise IMO. —kallerna™ 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is great of course, but the quality is really bad due to the high compression. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great combination --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality issues, per Daniel, especially in the top portion of the sky. Given this was a photo ops, I see no mitigating reasons for the quality not being better. --S23678 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to the quality related compression. Even at reasonable resolution (screen size) the clouds above Mt Fuji just look wrong with what looks like lots of posterisation. - Peripitus (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose with heavy heart, but I have to oppose because of a poor quality --Leafnode✉ 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. --Lošmi (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support When I saw the thumbnail at first I thought it was fake - impossible! 99of9 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question What's so impossible about it? Rare, certainly, but not impossible. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Obviously I was wrong. It just wowed me. --99of9 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Distracting and irrelevant background. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Irrelevant background? That's Mount Fuji you're talkin' about. I vote for this picture particularly for that reason, because it reminds me on modern version of Hokusai's series Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji. --Lošmi (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per 99of9 --Jklamo (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles