Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Air Force Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Air Force Memorial

The recently completed United States Air Force Memorial, as seen at night.
The recently completed United States Air Force Memorial, as seen at night.
Edit1, lightened the monument
Edit1, lightened the monument
Edit2, increased contrast (which also makes the monument lighter), and cropped the top slightly
Edit2, increased contrast (which also makes the monument lighter), and cropped the top slightly
Reason
The result of a 12-part stitch to produce high detail, interesting lighting.
Articles this image appears in
United States Air Force Memorial
Creator
User:Noclip
Nominator
Noclip
  • Support — Noclip 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Notwithstanding the artistic taste of the US Airforce (or lack thereof), the picture is well executed. Chris 73 | Talk 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Agreed. Very cool! tiZom(2¢) 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support any. Good night shot. --Tewy 03:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The pillars are too dimly lit to make the pic striking enough for FP - Adrian Pingstone 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent work. Very sharp throughout, and I disagree with Adrian Pingstone because I think the lighting is quite good. Some manual contrast tweaking could really make the pillars shine (which I would do if I had the time), but as is, it is still very good. --Asiir 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Uploaded edit 2, which increases contrast and crops top slightly. --Asiir 12:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just three curved cocks. Nothing interesting. Olegivvit 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -Nelro 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

*Conditional support If someone could tweak the image a little and brighten the pillars slightly, I'd support, otherwise I'm neutral. --Mad Max 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If your neutral why did you specify conditional support? Ahadland 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably neutral for now, support with the specified edit. --Tewy 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 I like the contrast in edit2, but it seems a little excessive and unnatural at the bottom near the trees. --Mad Max 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I like the contrast of light upon the dark settings on the metal memorial. Real96 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 8thstar 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 It is my edit but I do think it looks best. -Fcb981 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Adrian Pinkstone. Witty lama 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support nice. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not interesting at all.--Svetovid 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 and original Tomer T 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not very interesting. Kaldari 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't believe being very interesting is part of the criteria. Noclip 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It really isn't, especially considering an image like this. --Tewy 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That picture makes my head hurt... hah 8thstar 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • To be more specific, this image fails the 3rd and 7th criterion.--Svetovid 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's pretty blurry, I think that's just a result of being a night shot. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I tried to separate my dislike for the structure in general and the picture's quality... I don't know if I succeeded but I don't think it's FP material like many others. gren グレン 08:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not bad at all, but not quite FP material either in my opinion. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --Terence 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)