Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Chinook helicopter and a Royal Marine rigid-inflatable boat (RIB), off Studland Bay, Dorset, UK. MOD 45155975.jpg

File:A Chinook helicopter and a Royal Marine rigid-inflatable boat (RIB), off Studland Bay, Dorset, UK. MOD 45155975.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2014 at 07:11:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by "LA PHOT HAMISH BURKE" - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 07:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 07:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oddly, I had this on my backlog to think about nominating as a FP. The MoD publishes around 50 photographs a month on its images archive, representing what they feel are the best of its 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 collection. 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) 07:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fæ. Would you also put this note on the English Wikipedia nomination? I think the additional information is valuable for evaluators. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 07:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Fæ (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Temporary) Weak oppose Horizon is tilted. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Support Better now. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please correct the tilted horizon --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have corrected the tilt. There may be a slight effect from the line of clouds above the sea horizon line that exaggerated the tilt. If the correction could be done better, please do overwrite again using the original. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question before a support: is this license suitable ? --Jebulon (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. For those unfamiliar with {{OGL}}, it acts in the same way as a public domain licence you might see from US Government, e.g. {{PD-USGov}}, but it may have an additional attribution that is required to persist with image reuse under the normal "moral rights" provisions for copyright in UK law. Since the licence was introduced by UK Government a couple of years ago, Commons has over 14,000 images using the licence, a good chunk of those uploaded by me.--Fæ (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the explanation. I was indeed unfamiliar with this license. I usually don't support government's pictures, but this one deserves an exception !--Jebulon (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. Given detail is not really an issue perhaps some noise reduction would be warranted. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks oversaturated. --Ximonic (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luxetowiec (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow!, ...but it is disappointing to see so much noise at full resolution. Is there a way to reduce it? Poc o² 08:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good compo, but oversarured and insufficient quality IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Christian Ferrer. --P e z i (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am satified this is a featurable subject, but some technicasl issues were raised and should be addressed. Most notably the noise. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Echoing Saffron. I suggest the issue(s) be fixed first before this picture is promoted to FP status. --Graphium 14:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uploaded a new version with colour noise reduced using a standard filter in Photoshop (don't forget to refresh your version). I am not sure if this is sufficient or excessive, happy for others to have a go at this using their own tools. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the low detail motif I would say that is sufficient. I think anyone would agree it's not perfect technically, but the striking visual and composition makes the difference. Thanks. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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