Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carrier strike group
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 02:35:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- Lead image for the article Carrier strike group, good EV, nice colors, good clarity
- Articles in which this image appears
- Carrier strike group, Carrier battle group, Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
- Creator
- Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Christopher Stephens
- Support as nominator --Pine✉ 02:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The horizon is not horizontal; it is tilted slightly to the left. Chris857 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. I don't have the tools to fix it but I would appreciate it if someone who can fix it would do so. I don't think it has any meaningful effect on the EV or clarity of the photo but I agree it would be nice to have that tilt adjusted. --Pine✉ 04:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, good contrast, striking perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- I rotated it 0.7 degrees clockwise, and uploaded over the old file since it was such a tiny change. If anyone thinks this should be uploaded separately as an edit, feel free to revert me. Remember to purge your cache to see the edit. Chick Bowen 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- OpposeThe US Navy frequently releases posed photos of carrier groups, and this isn't a good example as the carrier group here is much smaller than the norm (they normally include several more surface warships and at least one submarine) and the sky conditions aren't great. The head-on viewpoint also makes it impossible to identify the other ships in the group, which also means that the photo doesn't make it clear that these forces involve several different types of ships. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Group size in photo is consistent with the description in the article. One carrier, one cruisers, two destroyers, one supply ship. Rmhermen (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The submarines are missing, and the ship at the front appears to be an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, which I don't believe typically deploy as part of carrier groups (I think that they're now typically used for patrol work as their missile systems have been removed). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment:I agree it looks to small for a cruiser - but the article says the submarines are optional. If the article is wrong it needs to be changed. Rmhermen (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The submarines are missing, and the ship at the front appears to be an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, which I don't believe typically deploy as part of carrier groups (I think that they're now typically used for patrol work as their missile systems have been removed). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Group size in photo is consistent with the description in the article. One carrier, one cruisers, two destroyers, one supply ship. Rmhermen (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Nick-D, also noisy and unnatural sky. ■ MMXX talk 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Were the ships positioned in this formation for the sake of the photo, or is this arrangement of the ships (including the distance between them) typical for deployments at sea? If the latter, this photo would have high EV. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- It says in the caption in Carrier strike group that "such a formation would not be used in combat", and it also states that "ships assigned to the USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group sail in formation for a strike group photo". It appears that is was probably set up for the purpose of taking a picture, so the EV is not very high. Dusty777 17:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)