Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two coast guard HH-65C Dolphin helicopters.jpg

File:Two coast guard HH-65C Dolphin helicopters.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 18:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Two coast guard HH-65C Dolphin helicopters.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two coast guard HH-65C Dolphin helicopters.jpg

•  Info Because of the non-sRGB profile, you need to use a software capable of color management to assess this image. In particular, Internet Explorer is not capable of displaying it correctly. (Firefox >= 3.5 is.) -- H005 (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Info The image has been renamed to File:Two coast guard HH-65C Dolphin helicopters.jpg. -- H005 (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Please note that the image was not cropped. It was taken from the door of the third helicopter in the formation. This explains the close-up look. (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Info created by PAC Dana Warr - uploaded by Turboshaft - nominated by Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- A pretty well-defined image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• But cropped too tight. --Dschwen (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment-- Unfortunately it seems to have been taken like that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'd support it if it didn't violate against the rule Quality images must be categorized, have meaningful title and description.

As for the crop: IMHO the tight crop adds to the tension of the image, so I'd rather keep it as it is.

Btw, it seems that the Wikimedia thumbnail creation software isn't able to deal with the embedded AdobeRGB profile - the thumbnails look rather pale. Is this a known issue? -- H005 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Comment-- I fixed the first and third issue. It seems as if the image made it onto the site before we changed the rules here about the names of things. If anyone can move the image, than that would be great, but since I cannot do so, this works for now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Support I've added a rename tag and trust that a bot will one day deal with the name issue. -- H005 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Support, good composition. --Aqwis (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I really like the composition, but am not impressed with the crop. Tiptoety ^talk 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Even if part of the blade is missing, I find this picture really amazing! Strong support --Ymaup (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• weak Support IMHO it's Ok. Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Amazing, but the crop... —kallerna™ 11:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I love it. I like all aircraft photos in general, but this one especially. And as for the crop - there are obstacles impossible to overcome. Airwolf (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What, like zooming out a little? ;o) --Dschwen (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose If not cropped, then woefully resized. Lycaon (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• weak Support The blade crop does not detract from the image IMO. Better, not cropped, but the picture is very nice the way it is. --Relic38 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Very nice, but the crop is unimpressive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Truly great composition, but crop is simply too bad for FP. -- JovanCormac 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose not a good angle, bad crop. Cacophony (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)