Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Southwest Airlines Boeing 737

Southwest Airlines Boeing 737
Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2010 at 21:00:56 (UTC)
 * Reason:This image has a large resolution and is of the entire aircraft. Another FPC of a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 took place a little under a year ago. That image wasn't promoted since it didn't show the entire aircraft. This image also shows blended winglets.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Boeing 737 - infobox
 * FP category for this image:Aeronautics and aviation
 * Creator:Dylan Ashe


 * Support as nominator --~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 21:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is certainly a *properly done* photograph; it has no motion blur that I can see. So I suppose it is “of a high technical standard”. As I’m not *feeling* it (sorry), I’m open to suggestions as to how this “Is among Wikipedia's best work”. It just seems to have a “sterile” affect about it. Greg L (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of the feeling that the monotone pale sky provides a less than optimal backtground. I would like a brighter blue and maybe some bright white clouds in the background, but none of that really takes away from the photograph's main subject.  I don't think there is a real good reason to oppose, although it is not a mushroom, which might be a good reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That’s what was in the back of my mind as a possibility: clouds, like seen in this TAROM 737-700 shot on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't a bad picture- however, what I'm feeling right now is that the crop is perhaps a little tight. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No motion blur, but the color's not too sharp, that's noticeable over the red and blue areas, though that might be because it seems by the brightness and angle of shadows that this was taken in noon, and on a clear and probably hot day, so maybe it's glare. and it might've looked nicer with more space left to the sides of the wings' tips. Because of these two things the image is actually a little boring, but it is technically good I guess. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gut Monk (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TonyTheTiger, bland sky and not a mushroom. — raeky  T  00:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The aircraft has a colourful livery, but the uninteresting sky ruins the image. It doesn't have that special 'pizzazz'.  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. As I said above, I think the crop's a little tight, and I hear what people are saying about the boring background, but this is a high-quality, high EV image, with pride of place in an article. I don't think this would be a poor addition to our FPs, but, at the same time, I don't think it would be the best addition. I'm open to persuasion either way. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per reasons cited in my comment, above. Greg L (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Unsure about this one, all the technicals are there, besides maybe a nice crop, yet I see what people are saying about the bland background as it was my initial thought. I thought I'd go in search and see what has happened to similar images and we have a very similar photo that passed to FP status here: []. JFitch   (talk)  00:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)