Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HMS Warrior (1860)
- Reason
- Self nom. The subject of the photo is of considerable significance. The second ironclad propper to be built and and the oldest to survive. I don't think the photo breaches any mandatory FP criteria. The angle of the sun in this case was such that it doesn't suffer the blown-out highlights issue that File:HMS Warrior (1860)2008.jpg suffers from. The resolution exceeds FP requirements and is high enough to show the detail of the rigging. I also think the angle works better than the view more to the side such as File:HMS warrior1860june2009fromside.jpg
- Articles this image appears in
- HMS Warrior (1860)
- Creator
- Geni
2008.jpg){kind=link}
- Support as nominator --©Geni 13:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support Slightly blured especially around flags, but otherwise a very good picture for a historic ship. Gazhiley (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a good, but not remarkable, photo of a highly accessible ship (it's part of a major tourist attraction which is a couple of hours train trip from London). The modern craft in the foreground and the clouds behind the rigging are distracting and I imagine that they're not there all the time. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- The boats in the forground are always there.see commons:Category:HMS Warrior (1860) for photos taken over a number of years showing this.©Geni 12:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just checked my photos of Warrior from my visit to the ship in April 2006 and they were there at that time as well. On the other hand, there must be times where there are at least less boats present (Saturday afternoons in summer perhaps?). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry to oppose but this image isn't particularly striking - I prefer File:HMS Warrior (1860)2008.jpg in that respect. While there are no blown highlighs the hull is so dark as to lose much of the detail. The multiple boats around it is unfortunate, though probably unavoidable as you say. Images are held to a very high standard when they are reproducible and I feel this falls foul of that. |→ Spaully τ 13:21, 28 June 2009 (GMT)
Not promoted --wadester16
18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)