Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sukhoi Su-30 inflight

Sukhoi Su-30 inflight
Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 14:16:10 (UTC)
 * Reason:The photo is of high quality and beautifully depicts the Su-30 inflight.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Sukhoi Su-30, Russian Air Force
 * FP category for this image:
 * Creator:Sergey Krivchikov


 * Support as nominator --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Good image.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's pretty small... J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support These air-to-air shots are striking and rare. Greg L (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be nice to have this image at larger than 1,023 × 678 pixels if available, but this is enough for a web image.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nice image, but too small, leaves me wanting to see more detail. P. S. Burton  (talk)  21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - striking and rare image, quite usable even at this resolution Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the minimum size for FP on enwp is 1000px. As this photo meets that threshold, the size of the image really shouldn't matter. As to whether a larger resolution photo is possible, many photographers like to profit from their hard work, and by making available an extremely high resolution photo this would negate their ability to profit from their work. Hence, a higher resolution version of this image will not be able to be provided. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Slightly small, yes, as we have all noted, but incredibly striking.  WackyWace  converse 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact of the matter is that this photo really is small. It may exceed the bare minimum in terms of size, but many crucial details are not visible. -- mcshadypl T C  23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Smaller than might have been hoped for, but still, it's a very interesting and high-quality picture. It has a good EV and is pleasing to the eye. Clementina   talk  02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The image meets WP:FP?, so oppose votes should not be based simply on the size. We have all agreed that the image is on the small side for a FP, but since it was created by a professional aviation photographer and he has made a version available to Wikipedia, we should be grateful and not complaining.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is not so small that it is excluded from this process does not mean that it couldn't be said to be too small. We reject high quality images all the time, even when they meet the size requirements, because they are too small. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Truth is that it's big enough by the criteria, and not a generous crop, and it hits the spot in every other way. And in contrast to J Milburn's view, I believe that we don't routinely reject images that are big enough because they're not big enough, but rather, because there are other exacerbating faults. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps, but those are sometimes faults that we would be willing to ignore on a larger image. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, images should be judged when scaled to minimum eligible size or slightly above. At the same time, just because an image looks okay at minimum eligible size doesn't mean we should forego restorative measures if there are problems like scratches or digital noise visible at full size. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support That is a great set of clouds in the background.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the quality concerns above. Cowtowner (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Suport. Great picture. Fulfills the size requirements and is large enough for me too. Offliner (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: absolutely gorgeous. It's a shame it isn't larger, as I wish to download it as my desktop background, but alas...  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:58, 15 September 2010
 * Oppose. I'm not sold on this, it just isn't big enough, to my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - while it's a shame it isn't larger, that alone isn't enough in my opinion to detract from an otherwise excellent and detailed shot of this plane. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too small. Not enough detail. Resolution is insufficient for such a large subject. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support Aesthetically top notch, pity about the resolution. Doug (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din\ talk 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)