Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/U.S. Navy Diver enters the water during a training evolution at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center 140218-N-IC111-156.jpg

A U.S. Navy diver enters the water during a training evaluation[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 06:09:27 (UTC)

Reason: HQ + EV
Articles in which this image appears: Underwater diving
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Fæ
MC2 Kevin B. Gray

Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - One, this isn't "underwater diving". This diver is in the act of diving into the water. Second, the photographer wasn't Fae. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with the first objection. Entering the water in diving gear seems to me to be an integral and indispensable aspect of underwater diving. 86.152.161.192 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is, by definition, diving. Not "underwater" diving. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That objection seems to be like complaining that a photo of a saturn 5 rocket during takeoff isn't spaceflight. It may not be underwater diving, but in a couple seconds it will be, and it's the starting point for most underwater dives. MChesterMC (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example. A Saturn 5 rocket would have EV in the Saturn 5 article, so even if it didn't have EV for space flight, it would have EV for the rocket. This does not appear in any other articles, so there's nothing to save it. Besides, we've got numerous images of people actually in the water, including one FP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a very good example, and exactly illustrates why your objection is bogus. 217.44.208.136 (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows the shoulders and back of a diver wearing a surface-supplied diving helmet. Perhaps if there was a section on giant stride entry in the Surface-supplied diving article the image might be a more suitable illustration. In an article on general underwater diving, to lead off with such a specific and narrow aspect of diving seems like a misplaced image. With all due respect, from an EV perspective, the U.S. Navy training image tells me absolutely nothing about general underwater diving (and may misinform those that think the illustrated underwater diving gear is common).--Godot13 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Godot. If we had information on the entry technique, this may be worthy of FP, but as for now it doesn't have the necessary EV. IP, how exactly is it a good example to compare something which requires new text to be written to have any EV with something which has EV just for showing the object in question? They are not equatable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – No personal or event context, ergo minimal EV. Sca (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – On EV grounds. If we are illustrating underwater diving, we should probably have a picture of a diver underwater. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per all of the above. First FPC nom was a year ago.--Godot13 (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]