Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines - RIMPAC 2004

3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines - RIMPAC 2004

 * Reason: High quality/resolution, Free license, Accurate and good captioning, with no digital manipulation. On a personal note, I think it is a really cool beach picture, with the obvious twist that it is an amphibious assault.  The only problem I see is I cannot honestly say it is Wikipedia's best work, although I personally think it is an amazing picture.
 * Articles in which this image appears: Amphibious warfare, 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines, Amphibious Assault Vehicle, RIMPAC, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, List of United States Marine Corps battalions
 * Creator:Created by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Jane West. Uploaded by Palm Dogg


 * Support as nominator --Palm_Dogg (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is an OK photo, it doesn't meet the FP criteria in my view. The photo is dominated by the grass in the foreground, and the rest of the image isn't terribly striking. As this is a photo of a training exercise the EV is relatively low. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too much grass. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per above. Elekhh (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if it weren't for the grass, this would have a decent shot at FP, I think... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK! OK! I get it! No one likes grass!  Uploaded a new version with the grass mostly cropped out. Palm_Dogg (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe overly downsampled? Gone from 836kb to 236kb, which seems quite small for a file this size. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Grass is the most KB consuming texture, whereas a beautiful blue sky can be compressed in a few bites. However, I think the image still looks like a KGB snapshot :) Elekhh (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True...but it's a cloudy blue sky :-). I asked not having viewed the fullsize original, but did notice in the fullsize edit that's now here that the soldiers contained little detail, which could have been an indicator of excessive downsampling. --jjron (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Horizon tilted badly as well Gazhiley (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I actually quite like this photo and would support it regardless of the minor issues described above. However, the resolution/image quality just isn't up to par IMO. Sadly it was taken with a fairly old DSLR (2.7 megapixels), and at full size, it's a little soft. Would definitely have supported this shot if it were taken with a more modern DSLR. (the first couple of DSLR generations had poorer-than-35mm-film quality). &#208;iliff    «»  (Talk)  15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gazhiley -- Herby talk thyme 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose regretfully, per Diliff. It's a great image otherwise! Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 07:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)