Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/F-16 Fighting Falcon

F-16 Fighting Falcon edit

A F-16 Fighting Falcon flying over Iraq

Edit

Pointing out weird artifacts

A fantastic image of the F-16 jet which is shown in the article F-16 Fighting Falcon. The credit for the image goes to a Norwegian Wikipedian, Duffman.

Surely credit to the Air Force photographer? ed g2s • talk 12:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support :- It gains attention of someone. I think on the Main Page, it should make a perfect match - Mastermind 11:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. There are strange artifacts on the left side of the image, near the missile on the edge of the wing and below. Not that easy to remove but could be done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good job. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose again. Lots of artifacts that I didn't see previously, and in light of the issue of the missing stabilizer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, should be fairly easy to remove, and should be done. ed g2s • talk 12:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ed g2s • talk 12:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vertical stabilizer is cut off on this photo. Mikeo 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some weird blue pixels on the wing, some white ones above the desert. Mikeo 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more. ed g2s • talk 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Just have a look at the wings, the fuselage, and the horizontal stabilizers. The blue patterns are still there. Mikeo 13:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose. Incomplete subject. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lots of weird artifacts (view the full image if you don't see them). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These have been removed, see above. ed g2s • talk 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've attached an image of the weird artifacts I was pointing out. The artifacts really are bugging me. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The background makes it kind of dull. There is a bothersome shadow on the nose of the plane. The tail is clipped as mentioned above. The photographer should be credited. Ziggur 00:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice image. chowells 01:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. good picture, but I cant supprot it with the tail cut off. Shadow on the nose is bad, but I could deal with that. Woops, didn't realize I wasnt signed in. say1988 03:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Want more tail! Haven't we heard that before? --Janke | Talk 09:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tail is a problem, but still a pretty cool image. I've uploaded an edit with some sharpening/saturation. --Fir0002 www 11:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fir's slightly edited version as it cleans the image up nicely. The tail stabilizer missing is not a huge thing, and suggesting that the image somehow now doesn't do its encyclopedic duty of displaying the aircraft is just silly. All I'd like to see for this picture is some kind of source info other than just asserting it is from the Air Force (which I'm sure it is). A weblink or something. Staxringold 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fir's edit. Looks like a great picture, a more specific source would be nice, but is not absolutely necessary. --Hetar 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fir’s edit. TomStar81 04:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already have plenty of cool plane pics here Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Aeronautics_2. Cut off vertical stabilizer bothers me too much. --Dschwen 06:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 17:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]