Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-2 Spirit vs F-16 and F-18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B-2 Spirit vs F-16 and F-18[edit]

A B-2 Spirit, two F-16 Fighting Falcons and an F-18 Hornet sit on the flightline at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Reason
Alternative proposal to the B-2 Spirit nomination below. The detail in this image is similar to the alternative due to a better angle, but it offers more encyclopedic value due to the size comparison to two types of fighters and a number of humans. Also, the contrast of the airplanes against the tarmac makes for a nice composition.
Articles this image appears in
B-2 Spirit
Creator
U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III
Nominator
trialsanderrors
  • Support — trialsanderrors 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Interesting, but the tarmac is distracting and messy, and the planes are too far apart (by far most of the image is plain concrete) --frothT 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with froth - mottled tarmac takes away from the planes too much. — Zaui (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the "mottled" tarmac, although admittedly it doesn't look that good in the thumbnail. I doubt the distance between the airplanes can be fixed. I'm sure that's mandated by safety rules. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support technically fine, I like the mottled concrete, and there is rich detail in things like the people and the little red carts - gives much more of a sense of the "system of a plane" than just the plane against sky. Debivort 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, it's an awesome angle and really gives a sense of scale to the planes that's usually missing, but the concrete is just not helping aesthetically. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This photograph (even in thumbnail) drew my eye immediately and made me examine the full photo and read bits of the B-2 article. Highly enc and gives a great sense of perspective. The other nomination (while a pretty picture) isn't as informative.CaseKid 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- per froth. --TotoBaggins 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sure, you get some scale to the picture, big deal. Imagine looking at the artical about the B-2 and right up there in the info box is this picture with 60% concrete, 20% other planes and 20% subject, yeah, really great. I want a picture of an airplane in the sky. How would it look if all the boat pictures were of boats in dry-dock, or all the pictures of cars in a garage. The angle is bad too. You get no idea of perspective with a birds-eye view and all they are good at illistrating is maps and dimentions. The picture below is one I could actualy imagine seeing as the main picture. This one I could bearly pass as the 5th best picture on the article. -Fcb981 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As opposed to above I like that this isn't in the sky. When I saw it I was quite surprised at just how much bigger the B-2 is than normal fighters. I think this illustrates the size of the plane very well giving it some context. gren グレン 07:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not even close. A crucial detail that must be evident in any encyclopedic photo of this plane is the curvature of the surfaces that are so crucial in its stealth. A photo taken directly above the plane, particularly from a height such as this, doesn't provide such detail. Meniscus 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to be a problem with both proposed images, or pretty much all I looked at. Care to offer an image where the curvature is visible? ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The background gets in the way of adequately portraying the subject. Noclip 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. This should be a FP on the commons, where artistic merit is good enough. The image is very interesting, and the texture only helps that. I am also quite fond of the spacing between the planes. However, as noted above by other editors, these things are distracting when it comes to encyclopedic value. -Andrew c 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice 8thstar 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful. This is execellent for a realistic size comparision. SINFUL OCTOPUS 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/B-2_Spirit_vs_F-16_and_F-18&oldid=912021506"