Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-1B over the pacific ocean.jpg

B-1 Lancer


I discovered this while checking out the U.S. fleet of bombing aircraft, I thought it looked promising, so here it is. This appears in the article B-1 Lancer.


 * Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. A tiny bit grainy, but the quality is otherwise pretty good, as is the encyclopedic value and pleasingness to the eye. You might want to expand the caption a bit however. Nautica Shades (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose graininess, but mostly because I like the F16 take off picture below more, and it looks like it will reach FPC consensus. Why have there been so many military pictures recently? Debivort 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all its an F-18, not an F-16. Secondly, our supply of military FPs sucks (to the extent that an FP can suck), and I for one am getting tired of having the same images rotate through the War Portal in a never ending cycle. In oder to get into the FP roation in the War Portal the image has to be featured, which means running it through here first and having the nomination(s) systamically torn apart by the viewing public. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sir yes sir! An F18 Sir! A more direct approach to this problem might be to relax the standards of the War Portal image rotation. Just a thought? I guess it is easy to find military pics in the public domain as well... Debivort 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why have there been so many flower bird pictures lately as well? There have been lots of nominations... Each should be judged on its own. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since beginning of September, there have been 3 nominations with flowers (one of which was primarily a picture of a bee), 5 military craft nominations, and about a dozen bird nominations. I think my question was legitimate. Debivort 02:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I love a picture with good coloration. Also, the altitude at which this was taken is astounding (or perhaps I should fly more often):-). | AndonicO 23:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent pic, I love it - Adrian Pingstone 23:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * neutral, excellent technically, but I'd support an angle that shows a bit more of a side view/profile and shows the engines. The shape of the plane isn't quite clear from this angle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the plane's shape is very visible here; maybe you meant the silhouette? From this angle, you can even see that the wings are expandable. | AndonicO 09:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent photograph, and very encyclopaedic as well. Would have strongly supported if the nose was lined up in the center. - doniv 15:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support mmmm aircrafty. Also nicly photographed. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Per Nauticashades. -- Tewy  20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Nice --Fir0002 08:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support PPGMD 14:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)