Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SpaceShipOne Taxi's into History

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 14:49:23 (UTC)

Reason: Historical Photo
Articles in which this image appears: SpaceShipOne flight 16P
FP category for this image: link to category (listed on the WP:FP page) that best describes the image
Creator: WPPilot

Support as nominator --WPPilot 14:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Framing is too tight, several distracting elements (truck, blurred yellow and black pole / w.e.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination shouldn't be here. You've already nominated one picture of SpaceShipOne below. That is still open. This should either be an alt there, or at the very least you should wait until that other nomination closes, or withdraw it. Doing it this way makes more work for reviewers and reduces the productivity of the discussion (as well as the chance that your nomination will pass as the reviewers whose complaints might have been addressed by an alternative may well not see it).

Additionally, for a picture that purports to illustrate a space flight, there's no real flying going on. In fact, it was taken almost a week before the flight. There's no EV here. 24.222.132.240 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This IP user simply did not look at the data on the ECIF, it was the taxi for take off for the final launch, nothing on earth would give anyone the impression that this was a week before the flight 16P, I took the pick and it was published in Flying mag so that comment should totally be disregarded. WPPilot talk 02:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this has been previously published, that should be noted. I think an OTRS letter is also needed, though I'm not 100% sure of how that works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not the file that I provided to Flying, I shot all of the photos at 9fps I have a lot of them, these are my own personal photos. I need to correct that this is flight 16P not 17P. WPPilot talkWPPilot 02:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what your comment implies. "I took the pick and it was published in Flying mag so that comment should totally be disregarded." means this picture. This exact picture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a minor nitpick, but you said you shot all the photos at 9fps. You shot this photo with a D70 (according to the EXIF) which is only capable of 3fps. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it strange that this IP user above just joined in Feb, as an IP number went directly into editing and commenting on only on nominations for this category? WPPilot talk

No, not especially. 1) it could be someone who has previously shown an interest in the process (there was an IP a couple months back who would provide comments, usually quite constructive and well reasoned) and 2) it could be someone who has been active elsewhere but has a dynamic IP, so those other contributions don't show. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed images on FPC on and off for ~4 years. I previously did so on an account I no longer have access to (and for that matter no longer care to use). I am not interested in registering another. I contribute occasionally - either when mood takes me or when I feel things are going astray. I assure you I am hardly mysteriously, or as implied malicious. Many users still here might still recognize my name. As for this nomination, there was clearly a disagreement between the flight number and the EXIF date. As for the pictures themselves, if we are going to illustrate the flight, not the vehicle then it should be, well, flying. Featured images of space shuttles flights typically do - or at least the launch. Otherwise there's nothing really remarkable or encyclopedic. 24.222.132.240 (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't add any attribution parameters (user name, name, etc.) in the description field; it is intended only for describing the subject. Use author and attribution/creditline for crediting the author. (I think I had corrected you earlier.) J e e 16:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The verb would be taxis — "taxi's" being the possessive form of the noun. Sca (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]