Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Military aircrafts on runway
A collection of military aircraft. NASA PD.
- Nominated, and presumably supported, by YOYOKER. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ineligible, because it is not currently used on any pages. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)- Solved features in Aircrafts, but i'm sure it can be placed in lots of other places 86.129.70.90 15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose now that it is eligible; the image is far too blurry to be a featured picture. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 8 April 2006 @ 18:43 (UTC)
- Oppose Although I like it because it shows relative size, it's way too fuzzy. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice constellation of outstanding aircraft. The quality is horrible - just look at the SR-71. Has this been a 256-color picture before? Not FP worthy. Mikeo 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. though I would also add that
I do not see any reason behind these aircraft in it. They are not all of a typ, or active at the same time or even all used by the military. just seems random to me.say1988 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)- It is not that random. All aircraft displayed there have been test airplanes at the Dryden Flight Resarch Centre. Most of them do not exist twice - like the F16XL or the F15Active. 220.104.43.122 06:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- ok, one of my problems is solved, but others remain. Also the golf cart type vehicle is distractingsay1988 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is not that random. All aircraft displayed there have been test airplanes at the Dryden Flight Resarch Centre. Most of them do not exist twice - like the F16XL or the F15Active. 220.104.43.122 06:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Severe image quality problems. --Janke | Talk 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hold on, hold on - that image could be quite decent if we can track down the Nasa original (taken 1997 by the way) and enhance it. I can't seem to find it after a few quick searches on the NASA Dryden site, and the link on the image desc page is broken. If we can, I'm sure we might be able to help the quality. I've found the Wikipedia original, and I'll try to do something with that, but several things struck me. That version has been edited (an apparently lossless crop) in an old version of Photoshop, on a Mac with a weird colour space. I might be able to do something. Until then, if you find an original, post linkage here. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Correction before I've even saved the page: I've found the closest NASA original here. I't the image description page with accompanying text, credits, and four versions. Incrementally sized JPGs, with one huge PSD, which I'll try to do something with. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the original PSD file. Unfortunately, it shows the same problems as the file already uploaded (severe artefacts, especially in darker regions, ...). Mikeo 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Same here. I love the picture and the subject matter, but I can't clean the PSD up enough at my current skill level to make it FP worthy. I'm sorry. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the original PSD file. Unfortunately, it shows the same problems as the file already uploaded (severe artefacts, especially in darker regions, ...). Mikeo 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Correction before I've even saved the page: I've found the closest NASA original here. I't the image description page with accompanying text, credits, and four versions. Incrementally sized JPGs, with one huge PSD, which I'll try to do something with. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Mikeo 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)