Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Low flying cessna 150.jpg

Low flying Cessna 150
A sharp and interesting shot of a Cessna 150L - the low flying swoop providing an interesting backdrop to the typical blue sky image of planes in flight IMO.

Appears in Cessna 150


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I feel teh cluttered and uninspiring background ruins it. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Confused shot - background and foreground merging.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Ryo 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC) And a hard decision on this one.  Fantastic focus on the aircraft, and being able to see the pilot is great.  But I agree that the background muddles things, sadly.
 * Support, i love the backgrund. Yes, i'm serious - the contrast between the pin-sharp airplane vs the motion-blurred background adds to the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support here too. You couldn't wish for better depth of field, I think complaints about the bg are a little misplaced. Unlucky with the light (from the left would have been great) and a little higher in the frame, and less tightly-cropped.. ..all forgivable nitpicks. Well-captured, good enc, bonus hilarious face in the cockpit. --mikaultalk 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I could see the pilot's face!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral the picture is good but the background spoils everything. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, perhaps you'll prefer the 182P I nominated above featuring a backdrop of the wild blue yonder... --Fir0002 07:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Caption please! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Opposing on a caption is not a valid rationale except if it doesn't contain information on what the subject is. A POTD style caption is not required on FPC - all we want here is the same style caption as you'd get in an article. We're not here looking for a rehash of the first paragraph of the image's home article. We're looking for the best pictures wiki has. Please reconsider your vote. --Fir0002 07:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you mean "A low flying Cessna 150L in Swifts Creek" is supposed to be the caption? I was looking for it in the usual spot. I suppose this technically meets the criteria, but these 8 words are not much of an effort; enc value stems from the image and the text. A caption is supposed to put the image into context, draw the reader into the article, and so on, as described here. "A low flying Cessna..." didn't do this job; I certainly didn't feel a desire to read the article, and I didn't even notice the caption the first time I looked at it! The FP criteria say the image has to have a good caption. I'll support your other Cessna image above if it gets a good caption. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Jeff but you're position is flawed on several counts. First - where is the consistency? The Louvre Panorama below gets by at a mere 6 words without comment. Second the caption provided described the situation perfectly - it says what the picture is of (a Cessna 150) what it is doing (flying low) and where it was taken (Swifts Creek). Any further information is superfluous. A caption shouldn't draw you into reading an article, the image should draw you in. And it's all fine and dandy to refer to WP:CAP but if you care to actually take a look at it this caption fares pretty well covering most requirements: identifies the subject (Cessna 150); is succinct; it doesn't really establish the relevance to article as this requirement doesn't apply to FPC (unless you count the reason for nomination); provides context (it was taken in Swifts Creek); perhaps the caption doesn't draw the reader into the article, but the thumbnail does and that is what is important on a page about pictures not about the subject the picture depicts. I think you should take a look at WP:CAP - your caption on the Wagner card is not succinct weighing in at 93 words (enough to start a stub!). And while we're onto the subject of your Wagner card caption, I'll move onto the third flaw of your argument. The captions you seem to desire are worthless rehashes of the article. Over half your caption is taken directly from the first paragraph of the article, with the rest stringing on a few other sentences from the article. And it's not just yours, to pick another current candidate at random check out the Downy Woodpecker. Beyond 10 or so words giving the kind of detail that is in my caption, the rest is taken from the article. And what is the point of that? If you are interested enough on the subject go get that info from the article!! I mean if an image appeared with that kind of caption in an article what would people do? Strip it back to that which describes the image alone. Even the details I provided here go beyond what an article would want - check this out. The image does have a good caption - it's just a current distorted trend which seems to encourage article rehashes in the guise of good captions. Please return to what FPC is about - identifying great photos, not captions! --Fir0002 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The only thing this pic has going for it in the FP nom is its high level of detail.. but I can see this being delisted in like a year when we're no longer impressed- it's really just barely wowable -- ⁪ffroth 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The background is a shame, it almost merges into the plane. -- Chris.B  |  talk  15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)