Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/P-51 Mustang

P-51 Mustang

File:P-51 Mustang edit2.jpg

Edit 2 by Fir0002 - lightened version of Edit 1

Very clear and bright picture of a classic WWII figter, shot from a rare head-on in flight;

Nominate and support. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll amend that to now support edit 1. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture.--Mike 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate to do this to my favorite aircraft of all time, but it's a bit grainy, there are jpg artifacts in the sky, and the wings' leading edges are all blown highlights. --Bridgecross 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Still oppose all edits!" he cried weakly from the bottom of the pile :) --Bridgecross 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't like to discard this remarkable picture too quickly. I don't care for the highlights but there are "finger-type" stains all over the image which don't look like jpeg artifacts. Alvesgaspar 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats dust on the digital sensor. A common but rather annoying problem. Could easily be cloned out but the only real solution is cleaning the sensor! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Support~~ because of the grain. Not a bad picture overall, and I don't mind the blown highlights (it might even be the sun's reflection). Perhaps Fir could fix it. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~. More likely, they're water spots on the canopy of the plane that the photographer is in (you can see part of the canopy in the lower left corner). But it's a very nice capture otherwise. howch e ng {chat} 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit 1. howch e ng {chat} 07:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either edit. Amazing angle --Fir0002 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you seriously clone out hundreds of blotches?! That gets you an effort-support edit (the perferably the lightened one). --Dschwen 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Good detail, distinctive colours, exciting angle - the plane really looks like a proper fighter in a photograph like this. Bob talk 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A good picture and a great background. User:Sd31415/Sig 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I like this picture, so I will not shoot it down. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice!! --Midnight Rider 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 — Great photo, great edits by Fir. I oppose edit 2 though, as it seems to have turned out little too bright. ♠ SG →Talk 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Alvesgaspar 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. I love the angle, and the edits fix most of the quality issues. Edit 2 is a little too bright, however. NauticaShad e s 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either edit. I chaged my vote. It's just about perfect now. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support either edit, though I think I slightly prefer edit 2. Great image of the greatest fighter plane ever. :-) « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 15:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either edit! A great shot. Jellocube27 17:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Edit 2 seems a little too light, so I'm sticking with edit 1. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 per above --antilived ^{T | C | G} 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support edit 1 near perfect with the edits.
Support edit 1, fantastic pic! - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edits 1 and 2 both work for me. ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 only. Edit 2 is too light for me. Good shot. --Tewy 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:P-51 Mustang edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 08:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]