Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Douglas A-20 Havoc

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2020 at 08:47:04 (UTC)

Reason: High quality of an LOC picture
Articles in which this image appears: Douglas A-20 Havoc, 465th Tactical Training Squadron, United States Office of War Information
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator: Alfred T. Palmer

Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would expect FP nom to be infobox image, inless infobox image is FP already Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles many of your own nominations aren't in the infobox, for example this from 2 weeks ago! and this. Infobox is not a requirement, it's not a valid oppose rational. Bammesk (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animal behaviour images are not placed in the infobox, where it is usual to have one male and one female portrait style image. In the damselfly article, one of the images is already FP. For the kingfisher, the composite wouldn't fit there anyway although that is irrelevant. Both the nominations you refer to add signifiant value to the articles - the core requirement of FP, even thopugh the damselfly was not promoted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rationals should be in-line with the en-WP FP criteria. Infobox is not a requirement. Commons FP is not a requirement either. In the past you have argued for multiple images showing various aspects of an animal's life or behavior, in flight, juvenile, mating, etc. Obviously not all of these fit in an infobox. In short, infobox is not a valid oppose rational (for birds or any subject). Bammesk (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, where there's logic. In this case, it is time-consuming to have to oppose such a poor nomination. I have argued without success that images should pass through FP in Commons. I will only oppose on technical grounds where I opposed at Commons FP. I am much more likely to oppose on technical grounds if a nominator has not bothered to go through Commons FP. Here should be about EV in an article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that images don't have to be in an infobox (for animals or any other subject). Bammesk (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was trying to be brief. This image adds little value to Douglas A-20 Havoc article where there are many images. This one is of little historical interest. There is no evidence that this aircraft was in 465th Tactical Training Squadron. In fact it almost certainly wasn't as the paint is wrong. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Badly framed and unremarkable image of a heavily photographed aircraft type with no particular EV. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]