Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Multirotor

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2020 at 14:18:13 (UTC)

Reason: The only lead image the article has had (since 2012). I think it satisfies (from top of this page): "being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article."
Articles in which this image appears: Multirotor, Volocopter
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator: User:Johnescalade

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not technically perfect but it's a highly remarkable photo. MER-C 16:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The horizon is tilted and it's a pretty tight crop on the quadcopter. -- Veggies (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not horizon. Not every field is flat. Bammesk (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True - but given that most of the trees also seem to be tilted the same amount, I suspect this one is. TSP (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per TSP's investigation, I found a video that e-volo made about this flight and, yes, the field is as flat as an Iowa prairie. -- Veggies (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This appears to be a wider crop of the same image? Do we know any more about sourcing and whether we could use this one instead? (Which could also allow us to realign the horizon if we thought it desirable.). TSP (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that's a huge red-flag. I did some more investigating and found a gallery of photos, including this one here [1] with the credit to the photos given to "e-volo", the company that made and flew this copter. It's possible that this was uploaded by the company to Wikimedia as free advertisement. This raises some COI issues for sure and the image uploader should have disclosed this, given that one of the articles that this image is used on is Volocopter, the new name for e-volo. -- Veggies (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we worry too much about COI on images - we've featured plenty of images supplied by the subjects. But it does raise the question as to whether the uploader commons:user:Johnescalade genuinely had permission to upload this as their own work, or whether it has in fact a copyvio all this time. TSP (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly another possibility, although I couldn't find an uncropped picture with similar resolution as the nominee. -- Veggies (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image I linked above is exactly the same resolution as, and apart from the crop exactly the same as, our nominee. TSP (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're right. (Derp). My bad. -- Veggies (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nom image is in the article, so that's what I am nominating. There is a guy walking by the tree line in the video, match him up with where he is in the nom image (at 2:34 just before the video cut), and that says the tilt of the multicopter is real. The photographer is laying close to ground, which brings out ground slopes. Also the grass line has 2 slopes to it, like a V. Bammesk (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 1. As discussed, I have severe concerns this is a copyvio; but even if not, the crop and the tilt both detract from the composition. The criteria say exceptions can be made on technical quality "If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image"; but this is literally cropped from the technically superior image which I linked above. TSP (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]