Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aircraft Rescue Firefighting training

Aircraft Rescue Firefighting training[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 06:14:16 (UTC)

Reason: High technical quality, good EV, and high "Wow!"
Articles in which this image appears: Firefighting
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Manuel F. Guerrero, U.S. Marine Corps

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sorry, but training "exercises" and other staged events don't seem FP-worthy. Sca (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How? Because there are safety crews nearby? Doubt you'd be able to get this close to a random fire in a city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the EXIF data doesn't have it as "staged", but "a controlled burn". I quote: "Aircraft, Rescue Firfighters aboard Marine Corps Air Station Miramar fight blazing fires during a controlled burn at the burn pit here. ARFF performed controlled burns June 13-14, they perform these burns about four times a year." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, we disgree. Big deal. Sca (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. The point of the process is to discuss, not just post votes and shrug over disagreements. Engage. As for the controlled aspect of it, all fire departments take part in "controlled burns" to practice firefighting. The goal is the same as a 'real' blaze: put it out. I don't see how it affects EV. 70.72.190.205 (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my opposition to posed and 'official' photos clear regarding multiple previous FP nominations. Sca (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm not really keen at this one- it's not really clear to me what's going on. They're stood in water, spraying water somewhere else (at we-don't-know-what) while a fire rages in the background. If I was teaching a child about firefighting, I don't think showing them this would help much- I'd show them something like this. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment: In your suggested image, two of the three hoses are spraying on something we can't see (and which wasn't on fire). And the text makes clear that they weren't trying to put out the fire at all. So not really much more EV there. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it's not perfect, and I won't be nominating it here. I am, however, inclined to think that it's more representative of what firefighters do. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per J Milburn. This is a dramatic and well executed photo, but I agree that its EV isn't terribly strong. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I see this in a totally different way. Sure we don't get to see what they are spraying water at but that's how they likely see it. They see smoke all around, they see fire everywhere. This is good EV and I support it. --CyberXRef^☎ 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting to note what there wear and how they work in teams. Certainly the kind of image that would attract me to an article and read more. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A stunning image, and I think the EV is definitely there. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 supports and 3 opposed make a 62.5% for promotion, which isn't enough. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]