Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crash.arp.600pix.jpg

File:Crash.arp.600pix.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 09:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III - uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by TheOriginalSoni -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, resolution is below required 2 megapixels --Ivar (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution is below 2 megapixels but the very tight timing to capture this dramatic photo I feel outweighs the problem with the size issue. The size is 1,180 x 1,368 which for me is adequate in this case. --Pine^✉ 04:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Yann (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small.--Jebulon (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe size is 1,180 x 1,368 which it's enough. O2 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, I prefer the uncropped version which gives a better composition (not the boring centered one here), and gives more context. Secondly, the description is quite misleading and disappointing for me, it gives the impression the pilot did great, when it was his fault the US Army lost a 20 millions $ aircraft. It was an honest mistake, he tried to save lifes, but lost his place in the Thunderbird teams for this (The pictures gives the impression he is still flying above some crowd, I know 3D can be tricky during meetings but really I don't find the description accurate enought). --PierreSelim (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Passed the 'too small' criterion for this file, and following PierreSelim comment, I still think tthe uncropped version is featurable because the subject is quite rare and featurable (and technique showing the technical separation of the craft close to the ground). But if I may, Pierre, I don't agree with your criticism on the description : you are making a political interpretation, which is not our place on commons... --Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not political, either the description is short Ejection from pilot bla bla seconds before F16 crash during XX airshow, either the description explains what happened and not only that the pilot saved lifes and his ejection seat worked well (which looks very much like propaganda to me). --PierreSelim (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I added some info to the file description, hope it's not misleading any more. --Ivar (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to agree with Pine on this one. Michael Barera (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PierreSelim. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion If this fails, which seems likely at this point, I suggest that someone nominate the uncropped version which is 3,008 x 1,960. --Pine^✉ 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]