Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barrett M82

Barrett M82

 * Reason:A training demonstration of the Barrett .50 photographed with the cartridge in the air exiting the chamber. A good demonstration of the weapon in operation and a high resolution file.  As noted at peer review, none of the 105 images at WikiProject Military history/Gallery depicts a female servicemember on active duty.  It'd be good to remedy that shortcoming and this seems to fit the bill on technical and encyclopedic merit.
 * Articles this image appears in:Barrett M82, Hurlburt Field
 * Creator:A1C Jason Epley


 * Support as nominator -- Durova Charge! 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mildly uninteresting. The picture is just not compelling, and seeking something more compelling in the articles turns up nothing.  --Blechnic (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Encyclopedically speaking, it's quite a nice image. However, the quality is lacking. The image seems to bright (or at leas the colors are washed out), very little is in focus, the background is distracting, and her back looks close to being blown. I checked with the eyedropper and there's nothing at 255-255-255, but it's getting close. Nautica Shad es  00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for obscuring subject's face and too much smoke. By comparison this similar image is sharper, has a nicer background, and with a faster exposure it doesn't blur the cartridge ejecting.  Fletcher (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The cartridge by his neck is not the one being ejected - that one still has the bullet in it. de Bivort 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The other spent cartridges taper in the front; I think you're seeing the tapered portion not the bullet. Otherwise I don't understand what I'm looking at.  Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Grrrr... This was the one that got the best overall responses at peer review.  While I respect the responses, what's peer review for if the difference in feedback is this great?  Durova Charge! 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * C'est la wiki. And I think it got mixed reviews not unambiguous support.  Personally I was favoring your second and third submissions. Fletcher (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My heart's with the third, but I wonder if it has enough fans. Back to the archives... (dig, dig)  Durova Charge! 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm with this one. While the quality deteriorates at the largest sizes, I think it has enough at lower ones (although still well above the size minima). It also has sufficient "interest" and dynamic and evocative colours in my opinion, to gather my support. The background isn't to everyone's taste, but is a plus for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Original. It's a good pic technically, but I find the background distracting, and the subject is not presented in a very interesting manner. Neutral Edit The edit dealt with most of my concerns, and the rest of my objections, while preventing a support, aren't big enough for me to oppose. Clegs (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. haha I like how it shows something happening (not just a still picture) and how you can see her reaction. I also like the background. But that's just me, and the quality is an issue for some people. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 - I am partial to this photo, but recognized the problems others have seen in it. Here is a crop / and minor clone job that gets rid of most of the uneven lighting. I also did a selective levels adjust to bring out some detail in the dust cloud. de Bivort 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless we can verify that the lady really did have sunburn at the time, I'll oppose edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that saturation change was inadvertent. Replaced with aloed version. de Bivort 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose No reason this should get fast tracked just because its a woman in the army. Almost nothing is in sharp focus due to the shutter speed and the smoke. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it help that she's in the Air Force? ;) Seriously, it's used in the article about the weapon and the military base, not at the history of women in armed services (although that would be an encyclopedic purpose too).  Durova Charge! 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Blechnic. Nothing particularly impressive is being demonstrated here. If a male was depicted in this picture, you wouldn't even consider nominating it. 67.174.4.2 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From above: "Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." Please sign in or sign up to contribute to the discussion. Nautica Shad es  23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 02:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)