Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cavitating-prop

Cavitating Prop
Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 09:26:57 (UTC)
 * Reason:Adds significant value to the two articles mentioned below, and is interesting scientifically and artistically
 * Articles in which this image appears: Cavitation, Water_tunnel_(hydrodynamic), and others
 * FP category for this image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Engineering_and_technology
 * Creator:Tor Stein


 * Support as nominator -- GreenPine  (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Interesting, but very small and low quality. This would be a great subject for a featured pic, but this picture is not it. J Milburn (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's lower than SVGA, but I like the black and white photography and the bubble action. One of the criteria for featured pics asks for large images if available, but currently there are none, so I felt that the size criteria was not applicable IMHO.  GreenPine  (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC).
 * You are right in thinking that the quality criteria are sometimes relaxed, but then we would have to ask whether this image, firstly, adds an awful lot to the article/has a very high EV (which it does) and, secondly, whether this image is completely irreplaceable (which, so far as I can see, it is not). As such, I consider it reasonable to oppose on the grounds that we can reasonably hope for a stronger image which is more inline with the quality of other featured photographs. J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that someone might think that the image is irreplaceable, but I've searched Flickr, the U.S. Navy website, and other image sources for another non-copyright-restricted image of cavitation, and none of those are superior to this. Access to engineering facilities where this sort of work happens is fairly rare, so I believe that another image that's superior to this won't be available anytime soon.  GreenPine  (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Replaceable, not replaced. FPC is for the best- if we do not yet have a picture that's up to scratch, we can wait. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This image was uploaded in 2006. If a better image hasn't been supplied in five years, I doubt that one is coming.  GreenPine  (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The technical requirements are usually relaxed for "not possible to get another photo" rather than "difficult to get another photo" or "we don't have another photo" in practise. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for the explanation. :) Maybe what I should be looking for is a category more like "adds highly significant value to the article" rather than Wikipedia-wide Featured Picture. Another way to approach this would be to do for photos what is done for articles, with various rankings of articles instead of simply featured and not featured. Is that a suggestion that I could make somewhere?  GreenPine  (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the idea of valued pictures, originally. However, the project was closed down as it really lost sight of the goal and became something of a burden. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info. (BTW, that link doesn't go to Valued Pictures). Good news is that Valued Pictures still exists on the Commons. I would de-list this image from FP candidates but there doesn't seem to be a way for a nominator to withdraw a nomination, so I'll let this time out.  GreenPine  (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Valued pictures :) J Milburn (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)