Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Royal Jordanian Falcons
Royal Jordanian Falcons[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2011 at 11:29:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- Here, have a few Extras. :) It's a high quality, rather large (5MPx+) photo of the team while performing one of their display manoeuvres. This is also the only picture of the RJF in full formation available on Commons. As a side note: while it is true, what the article says, that the RJF have five planes, they have displays in formations of four, the fifth being for backup only.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Royal Jordanian Falcons
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
- Creator
- Łukasz Golowanow
- Support as nominator --(air)Wolf (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose.EV (appears in one stub). TCO (reviews needed) 18:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the quality of the article in which the image appears is one of the criteria. The article may get better in time or perhaps there isn't that much to say about it. In either case the image has more value relative to EV for the subject rather than less. I would object, strongly, if the article was created solely as a container to place the image, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.--RDBury (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think implicitly if one DOES think that being in 10 high profile articles is good. Then the opposite is bad. In any case, I'm NOT asking anyone else to vote how I do. I just present my take. We all value EV versus technical skill differently. I am heavy on the EV and light on skill. We have lots that are the opposite. All for the good of Wiki. One team, one fight. Peace...bra! TCO (reviews needed) 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Now that I've added a few things to the article, I can give you my word: at the moment there is really not much more to say on the subject. :) The RJF are simply not as high-profile as the Red Arrows or Frecce Tricolori... (air)Wolf (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which is completely my point. I just struck it since you are such a nice guy. In my evil heart though...TCO (reviews needed) 19:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the quality of the article in which the image appears is one of the criteria. The article may get better in time or perhaps there isn't that much to say about it. In either case the image has more value relative to EV for the subject rather than less. I would object, strongly, if the article was created solely as a container to place the image, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.--RDBury (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This photo does the job of illustrating the subject, but I have difficulty with saying that it meets the FP requirement of being among Wikipedia's best work. The photo seems unremarkable to me. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 02:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)