Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/RQ-170 Sentinel
- Reason
- Artist is obviously very talented and put a lot of work and detail into this.
- Articles in which this image appears
- RQ-170 Sentinel, Flying wing, Aircraft of the United States Air Force, List of military aircraft of the United States,
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Aeronautics and aviation/Military
- Creator
- Truthdowser
- Support as nominator --Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Below size requirements, poor crop -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per alves... Would also prefer to have picture of real thing, plus shadown so dark it's distracting... Would prefer light source behind camera to throw shadows away from object not between object and camera... Gazhiley (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, as above. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Question Couldn't Truthdowser just render this again at a higher resolution? Or maybe ask someone else to do so if it's a RAM or CPU problem? Not sure if raytracing is a possibility, would be nice. @Gazhiley: I don't think they like pictures being taken... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well if that's the criteria I'll do a mock up of area 51 using blue tak and nom that! ;-) just messing I get ur point but don't believe that's enough justification to feature a plain white plastic (or whatever) copy of a plane... Gazhiley (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the fact that photos are unusual means that we should throw open the doors to renderings and sketches. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's our duty to illustrate topics the best way we can. My understanding is that the Combat Aircraft magazine has the best photos yet, and they're not up to our standards either. [1] We've previously allowed exceptions to our criteria, especially for historic pictures where the opportunity for getting a better picture has faded into the sands of time. In the same way, I could imagine us making an exception for topics where a good image is *not yet* available due to restrictions that are very difficult to circumvent and in this case probably entail risk to one's life. "Delist and replace" nominations already accommodate the idea of better images becoming available in due course. I also think that an interactive or at least animated 3D model could give a more comprehensive impression of this topic than a photograph taken at just one angle. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- FPC isn't about "the best we've got for now"- if we don't have an image good enough, we can wait. We can even just accept that no image will ever be featurable, in some extreme cases. I am not necessarily saying that we should not be illustrating the aircraft with a rendering, I am just saying that such a rendering is probably not suitable as a featured picture (unless presented as a diagram of some sort, rather than as a photograph substitute). J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- FPC is not biased against media of particular kinds, as long as they are images, animations, or, more recently, videos. I don't know what makes a rendering worse than a vector based diagram in your opinion. Each is a kind of original artwork, and they're interconvertible. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was making the distinction between diagrams (the mosquito image further up) and "photo-like" images (this one), not rendernings/vectors (which I am not qualified to discuss). Diagrams have a place, while the photo-like images can almost always be superseded by a photo. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- FPC is not biased against media of particular kinds, as long as they are images, animations, or, more recently, videos. I don't know what makes a rendering worse than a vector based diagram in your opinion. Each is a kind of original artwork, and they're interconvertible. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- FPC isn't about "the best we've got for now"- if we don't have an image good enough, we can wait. We can even just accept that no image will ever be featurable, in some extreme cases. I am not necessarily saying that we should not be illustrating the aircraft with a rendering, I am just saying that such a rendering is probably not suitable as a featured picture (unless presented as a diagram of some sort, rather than as a photograph substitute). J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's our duty to illustrate topics the best way we can. My understanding is that the Combat Aircraft magazine has the best photos yet, and they're not up to our standards either. [1] We've previously allowed exceptions to our criteria, especially for historic pictures where the opportunity for getting a better picture has faded into the sands of time. In the same way, I could imagine us making an exception for topics where a good image is *not yet* available due to restrictions that are very difficult to circumvent and in this case probably entail risk to one's life. "Delist and replace" nominations already accommodate the idea of better images becoming available in due course. I also think that an interactive or at least animated 3D model could give a more comprehensive impression of this topic than a photograph taken at just one angle. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Per above at this point doesn't meet criteria, but the work is quite impressive. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 23:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I noticed the image has a small flaw on the port-side fuselage. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comments
- Awesome work on the model, I appreciate how hard this was.
- Can and should be re-rendered at FP resolution requirements.
- Colouring and texturing should be improved, maybe a runway below it?
- An array of lights will soften the overly sharp shadow. Doug (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)