Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HMCS St. John's (FFH 340) 2nd nomination

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

HMCS St. John's (FFH 340)

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 07:02:37 (UTC)

 
Original - HMCS St. John's (FFH 340) in Gdynia harbor (Poland).
 
Edited - This the edited version that and the one currently used in the article. This one partial color cast was removed
Reason
Has Ev as its the lead image. It is a valued and quality image on Commons. It was nominated before but didnt pass by one vote, here is the old nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HMCS St. John's (FFH 340). A edited version was created after the nomination so i put the original and edited incase of any preference.
Articles in which this image appears
HMCS St. John's (FFH 340)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator
Airwolf
Any preference out of both them? Spongie555 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the alt, but I can't check for blown highlights etc atm. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'll play devils advocate and note that the ship is in need of a paint job. Navy ships get painted almost as often as sailors get haircuts, and this boat is about due. The composition is also less than spectacular. A shot of the ship underway or parked in a more aesthetically pleasing harbor would make for a more eye-catching image.Shroomydan (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate WP:NPA specifically since I can't respond to comments like the above with what's actually deserved so I'll leave it to say that although I am by policy forbidden from calling you stupid this is one of the stupidest ocmments (note I'm criticizing the content of the comment not the commentor) I've ever seen on here. You hedge your bets by criticizing the composition so people will be less likely to criticize your comment, but seriously the paint job? There have been plenty of FP's of everything under the sun with new paint jobs, old paint jobs, rust, mold, slime, grease, hell even stuff on fire on occasion, Although it can't be required I'd honestly suggest you take a look at the archives to see other things that have been nominated and featured before commenting again.</rant> Cat-five - talk 18:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (edit) Since it's pretty well done and interesting for a picture of a boat and seems to have fairly good EV. Cat-five - talk 18:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • <formatting note> I split off my support to make it more clear and separate it from my comment above, hopefully that won't break anything but wanted to note it just in case. Cat-five - talk 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I can tell from the article, this ship is still in service. That means there will be future opportunities to photograph it. Having served in the navy for six years, I know that rust stains like those appearing on the bow in this picture can develop after a month or two at sea. Navy ships are painted several times a year. They can be painted at sea, by guys hanging over the side. We always painted my ship before pulling into a port where dignitaries were scheduled to visit the ship, so as to look good for a photo op. This is a good picture with fine EV, but the prominent rust stains on the bow detract from its beauty. The red thing in the background also draws my attention to those rust stains, and the industrial port setting provides a less than attractive background. If you look through the archives of featured ships, Cat-five, you will not see another modern navy ship displaying so much rust.Shroomydan (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two pictures of contemporary warships at FP, neither of which have any hull visible which could show (or not) any rust! Of the civilian ships, at least one - File:Container Ship.jpg, passed this month - is visibly "tired", but others are much more polished. I'm not sure there's really much to go on here in terms of comparable images.
    • In general terms, I don't think the rust detracts from the image - whilst it is mildly unsightly and probably would be painted over later in the general run of things, it's "real", it's normal, and it shows the ship in a realistic day-to-day manner. Were the ship visibly half-way through being repainted, or if there were large scrapes down one side, for example, it would be reasonable to object that we're showing it in an unusually unfavourable light, but I don't really feel routine rusting reaches this point. Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it detracts at all I definitely think it doesn't detract to the point where this isn't FP worthy and just because the ship is still in service and will eventually be repainted doesn't mean that there will be features chances to get a shot that is overall this good of it in the future. Especially considering that others have commented but none have agreed enough to oppose as well, the oppose vote above seems specious, except in cases where there's a notable defect in the subject that detracts from it's EV quality of the subject has never really been considered relevant to FPC's when the quality of the image has been high, the size has been right, and the general EV has been unquestionable and especially on the last one I question the sincerity of anyone who would say that the EV is hurt by a little rust on the boat. Cat-five - talk 19:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that the rust should not be taken too seriously. See the featured picture criteria: "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing" and "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." Jujutacular talk 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:HMCS St. John's Gdynia wb.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/HMCS_St._John%27s_(FFH_340)_2nd_nomination&oldid=1138505007"