Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BoeingYAL-1

Boeing YAL-1
Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 22:56:59 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution, high quality image of a unique plane in-flight. It is also irreplaceable as the plane is currently sitting in the Boneyard.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Boeing YAL-1, +6
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
 * Creator:Missile Defence Agency


 * Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the specks of white stuff in the bottom half of the picture? Other than that, I'm inclined to support since it is sharp and well-composed and depicts a fascinating aircraft. dllu (t,c) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't say for sure, but I'd be inclined to go with whitecaps on the water. My reasoning for this being that they don't show up in the sky or seem to affect the aircraft like dust or noise might. Cowtowner (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds plausible. Support dllu (t,c) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support -- Colin°Talk 16:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support --Pine✉ 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Support) for EV. The article is about the weapons system, mostly about the laser not the plane.  I would prefer a photo or diagram that shows more the detail of the laser.  In this photo, you mostly just see the aircraft in flight, rather than the details of the laser that actually shoots down the missiles.  Nothing against the uploader and really appreciate your work.TCO (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good reason to have a separate FPC of such a diagram for the laser, but I think that this photo of the laser integrated into the plane is ok also. --Pine✉ 19:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's cool. We can agree to disagree.  I read the attached article and thought about the content and how to best transmit extra info graphically to the readers.TCO (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an image that shows the turret assembly up close in the article. The plane is an integral part of the weapons system (it is, after all, an airborne laser). It was never meant to be operated independently from the aircraft or from the ground. It doesn't make a lot of sense to oppose it because it shows the whole assembly doing what is was designed to do. Cowtowner (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the article, the vast majority of the text is about the laser. Showing a plane in flight at that scale is not so helpful for illustrating the topic.  Yeah sure it's an integrated system, but would a picture of an F-14 in flight be the best image for Phoenix missile system if it had some special radar or the like on the plane?  It's a judgment call, but an honest take coming from the reader perspective, not photographer.  The plane in the sky just overwhelms the object of real interest which is tiny within that shot.TCO (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A missile can be easily detached from an aircraft, but this laser is deeply integrated into this aircraft. I don't think you can find a photo of a cutaway view of this aircraft with the parts of the laser inside easily visible although you might find a computer rendering of one, but that could be a separate FP. None of this has a negative effect on the EV of this photo. --Pine✉ 22:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The most unique thing about this laser is that it is airborne. The delivery mechanism of any weapon is just as important as the weapon itself. To say that this photo lacks EV is like saying that a picture of a complete Self-propelled artillery lacks EV because it doesn't focus on the gun itself, but rather the entire vehicle. Even the title of the article, Boeing YAL-1, refers to the entire aircraft and not just the laser. That said, I agree with Pine that, should we come across a high quality photo of the laser turret itself, it would be good to have a second FP of that. dllu (t,c) 04:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of degree. I think I know plenty about weapons systems and platforms and not just from Wiki (movies, yeah...movies).  I read about that weapons system and I consumed the article as a READER.  The heart of it is the laser, not the plane (which could be different anyway).  Similarly to how the Aegis system is mostly about the Spy-1 phased array that you see all flat and all and not the entire Ticonderoga cruiser.  Let the vote stand, peeps.  You're just repeating yourselves now.TCO (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're repeating ourselves because this has become inane. This is not a matter degree, but of fact. You are simply wrong in your assessment. The most basic evidence of this is the fact that the aircraft and laser are referenced as a unit throughout the whole of the article as the ABL. Apply the criteria correctly. Cowtowner (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I re-read it and you are right about the emphasis of the article.TCO (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Prefer alt 1 a Commons editor just created this alt and I like the crop better. Note, this isn't a new support vote since I voted above and would also support the original but I prefer the alt. --Pine✉ 06:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer the original; I like having a bit of breathing space around the aircraft. I think losing the clouds at the top in particular makes it feel somewhat cramped and takes away from the in-the-air quality of picture. Cowtowner (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Prefer crop: for my old objection to another FP of a plane flying around in the air. This is a weapon system article.TCO (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not reopening this, but the plane is the weapons system. I don't see how the crop changes anything they're both images of a plane in the air... (I'm not trying to disagree with you here, I just don't see the point you're making.) Cowtowner (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 06:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)