Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Alitalia md-82 i-dacz planform arp.jpg

Image:Alitalia md-82 i-dacz planform arp.jpg, not featured

Info created by Arpingstone - uploaded by Arpingstone - nominated by SFC9394 --SFC9394 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, informative, encyclopaedic, technically difficult to take well and pleasing symmetry. --SFC9394 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That tight cropping is not going to, erm, fly very far. Pretty good capture though, I'd support with more space all around (someone with skills could probably even clone it in). --Dori - Talk 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see Carol has done the deed. I find enough wow in the fact that it's been captured in mid-air with such detail and symmetry (i.e. not slanted but dead on). --Dori - Talk 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - These old jets are rare to see (I used to live under Detroit airspace and lately I stay under San Francisco and San Jose air space) -- I don't know aircraft history so well but this is a 1970s jet (with the engines not on the wings). It is a cool photograph, possibly rare for digital.... -- carol 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very impressive, could probably be promoted to quality image but I think a featured picture needs a little bit more -- Gorgo 03:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~Changed my mind to neutral based on better crop. -- Slaunger 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I agree it has good value, but the crop is too tight and it is not sufficiently visually appealing for me to make it to FP. I suggest you add it as a test nomination as a Valued Image Candidate - a new project, which will be online soon specially aimed at recognizing images of special value for online display in Wikimedia projects. I see this as the best image of an MD 82 in flight as seen from below. The symmetry is good for illustrating the subject. -- Slaunger 08:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral based on better crop. -- Slaunger 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's very encyclopedic, but just not enough wow, as stated above. -- Ram-Man 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad! --Karelj 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured and impressive in its simplicity. --che 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Funny how I've never seen the underside of a plane. --typhoonchaser 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 09:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow-factor and very unsharp. - Keta 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ack opposers, little wow. A good candidate to QIC though -- Alvesgaspar 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow-factor low detail. --Beyond silence 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- Charlessauer 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) voting was closed. Lycaon 13:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Proper, solid, well done. Freedom to share 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC) voting was closed. Lycaon 13:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]