Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-35

Russian Air Force Sukhoi Su-35

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2010 at 06:35:58 (UTC)

Reason: This photo is probably the best photo that we have of the Su-35, and it illustrate the Su-35 article perfectly, and shows the aircraft off in a fantastic light.
Articles in which this image appears: Sukhoi Su-35, Sukhoi Su-35BM, Russian Air Force
FP category for this image
Creator: Oleg Belyakov

Support as nominator --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is this size wise? I don't know how you find out whether a picture meets our size creteria but this seems to me to be smaller than most pics nom'd but not sure if it's too small... I certainly want to be able to zoom in further though... gazhiley.co.uk 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In terms of size criteria, as per Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria, it meets the size requirement on enwp (and also on Commons). I have emailed the photographer and have asked him if he is interested in supplying a higher resolution photo for our use. I will await his answer, as I do not wish to pressure photographers who have donated to us so much of their toil. I will revert back with a response from Oleg in due course. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the response... I know the criteria but where to find out if it meets it or not I haven't got a clue... Ta tho... gazhiley.co.uk 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gaz, unless I'm missing something, the full size of the image pixel-wise is listed directly below the picture on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OOOOhhhhh that's where it is... Wondered why I was missing something... thought a calculation had to be made based on the file size or something... Cheers... And I can see that it's min 1000 pixels in each direction so yeah this pic is fine... I still want to look closer tho :-( gazhiley.co.uk 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure if you're talking about the criteria or the image, but the criteria currently read as, minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gaz, it would not be inconsistent to admit that an image meets the size guidelines while still opposing as it is too small to show everything you would like it to. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Slightly off topic, but what is the condensation above the wings? I assume it's due the low pressure from the air foils but I'm no expert.--RDBury (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct - compare with the image and caption here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prandtl–Glauert singularity? --I'ḏ♥One 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even better. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is featured picture material. Excellent quality and adds a lot to the article. Haljackey (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there a good reason not to rotate&crop the image such that the airplane is more vertical? It is weird to have a plane at 45°. Nergaal (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that could be seen as misleading. My understanding is that the condensation vortices wouldn't be present in stable horizontal flight. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The aircraft may be performing a Pugachev's Cobra. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice illustration: Link. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: fascinating photo of high quality. This might be a good candidate for aircraft camouflage and/or military camouflage as well (I really dig that digital pattern). bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: stunning. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry not to join the bandwagon. Why is the image so small and the crop so tight? Itt looks like the poor thing is caged. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's reasonable and logical to expect that detail/resolution increases with the size of the object being depicted. This plane is large, we expect to see more. Indeed, as a viewer I feel like I'm missing out with this image. Cowtowner (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's a damn nice shot, and I certainly wouldn't feel cheated if the consensus was to promote, but it's just too small for me. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great photograph, has much encyclopedic value as all of the plane (just manages to show the turbines), and of very high quality, albeit the low resolution. Although I'm still totally with it for featured picture, at a small resolution like in the article, the plane itself is notably not too visible so the edges, at least on the right, may need some cropping. Otherwise, it deserves featured picture much more than the Lockheed Martin plane someone else nominated today, and truthfully, most other images nominated today, in my opinion. --Γιάννης Α. ^✆|☑ 16:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The resolution is merely okay. The attitude of the plane is not clear to the observer. The vapour trails blend with the clouds. The clouds are distracting. The leading wing edge is saturated. Lastly, a picture about camouflage needs to demonstrate the environment in which an object is camouflaged. Not an irreplaceable shot, so standards are higher. I love the Su-35 and I'm sure this picture is an asset to the article, but this isn't FP quality. Doug (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]