Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kecskemet 2010 Frecce Tricolori photo 55.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Kecskemet 2010 Frecce Tricolori photo 55.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 18:31:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Wolf (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Wolf (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose the image of the Frecce Tricolori that you intend to get featured does not show the formation with their traditional colours. displaying the national colours of italy is what makes them so remarkable. the blurry bush seems rather distracting here and does not improve the composition. i would be glad if you could provide another picture showing the colours at this size. using digital image editing - removing the fauna will be the least problem. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by their traditional colours? This? As far as I know, the F.C. had never had this kind of livery on the MB-339. And if you want to remove the tree - sorry, no deal. Wolf (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • their traditional colours / national colours of italy refers to the green-white-red smoke trails as seen on other pictures. my point is not about the planes' colours - i opposed because i think showing the Frecce Tricolori without those smoke trails does not cope with what they are renowned for. if reviewed at 100% sharpness and detail could be better as well. for this is not an image showing a historical singularity an image featuring all the aspects mentioned here could still be created. think of someone who is not into aviation and does know about the Frecce Tricolori - which composition would be better to explain what is seen on the picture? --Peter Weis (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, the smoke, now I understand. Honestly, no, they are not renowned for the colour of the smoke. They're simply not. You could say that Patrulla Águila is, in a sense, because they're the only team to use yellow smoke. And mind you, this is not Wikipedia the Commons FPs do not need to be educational in the strict sense. And there is never an indication of what a particular image is supposed to illustrate. The argument would, however, be perfectly valid for valued images, that is where we pay attention to how the image illustrates a given topic. There due to the reasons you mentioned, I'd oppose the picture myself. Wolf (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • i think there is always an indication of what a particular image is supposed to illustrate. it first of all is image itself: the level of detail you can perceive, the movement within the image, the way the image was shot concerning technical aspects. the question one needs to ask oneself is: what does this picture tell me? does it tell about the aircraft type? not really, shape is visible, but technical details are not. does it tell about the formation they fly? yes it does - to a certain degree, film could do better to give a illustration of what they are able of. speaking of the connection of colour and Frecce Tricolori - i think it is the same with Patrulla Águila. they do formations including their national colours as well. that was my point. after having seen several picture of the Frecce Tricolori, visiting their website and browsing through the article i got the impression that this what they are renowned for. but alright, you are the guy who's into aviation. i would be very glad if you could get me the part of the guideline where it says, the Commons FPs do not need to be educational in the strict sense, i did not find it so far.--Peter Weis (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And where does it say that an image has to be educational? That's exactly the point that EV is absent from the guidelines altogether. Commons FP (as opposed to Wikipedia FP) deals with the image itself, not the image in the context of a particular article. And as for colours, the truth is that most stunts are done with white smoke, the colours are mostly reserved for fly-bys and some formation manoeuvres. Wolf (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • after digging deeper and deeper in the mine of understanding, i unearth your idea here. besides colours or not, besides educational value or not - what is the aspect of this image that makes you think it deserves featured picture status, what makes it convincing?--Peter Weis (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I like the diagonal composition and - as mentioned below - the idea of the planes popping out from behind the cover as if in a low level air raid. By the way, I've just nominated a picture with high (I think) educational value. You can consider it to have a dedication just for you   Really, no hard feelings. Wolf (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment a final note. for further uploads and your personal interest: Commons:Project scope. please note that educational values is not absent from the guidelines altogether. after all - knowing the whole range of policies and guidelines is rather impossible. use this for your advantage. PETER WEIS TALK 11:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Yes, but I would like to make the tree disappear. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support The trees are not an issue. It adds IMO. FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per Jebulon. --Cayambe (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kecskemet_2010_Frecce_Tricolori_photo_55.jpg&oldid=44852504"