Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barrage Balloon

Barrage Balloon

This almost comical image not only has very historical value and is one of a kind, but it is at a relatively good resolution. Although the quality is not perfect, I think this could still make it. As well as being a Commons Featured Picture, this image appears in Barrage balloon and Operation Plumbbob.

Nominate and support. - NauticaShad e s 15:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a very interesting picture. Gphoto ^talk 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very weak oppose - I love the subject - but - there are rubber-stamp duplicated regions in the grassy foreground. It looks manipulated. Debivort 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose - I can now see manipulated regions all over the bottom sixth of the image. Sorry. Debivort 09:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted (although they are obvious when you look for them). Whodunnit? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is the image from the US gov site. The weirdness in the grass is on the original, so it was not the doing of a wikipedian.--Andrew c 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what DOD is trying to hide ... hmmm ... Debivort 01:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's useful for the article conspiracy theory? ;-) • Le on 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as though that might have been wrinkles from the original image that came through in the scan? The left side at the bottom looks as though it were bent when scanned. Gphoto ^talk 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, there are exact duplicates of certain shapes and textures in the grass. It definitely looks like photoshop clone stamping or healing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SupportVery interesting photograph with historical significance. Wikipediarul e s 2221 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Unfortunately due to the misrepresentation of the foreground grass. If they were going to hide something - even if just scratches on the negative or something - they should have put a bit more effort into it before publishing the photo! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uploaded edit - crop. --Thelb ⁴ 17:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - Unless the DOD was trying to hide a UFO with that cloning, I don't think I would have voted for it anyway. Interesting, but not every mushroom cloud is signifigant--Niro5 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the poor quality of the upper part makes it clear that this was scanned from something that wasn't the original medium. Quality is blah. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image is already tagged as a featured picture and a picture of the day? --Cody.Pope 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On commons, which has different standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, sorry, I should read more often. --Cody.Pope 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support cropped version. One-of-a-kind composition; rez is excusable.--Here T oHelp 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]