Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Post Refit

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Post refit
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017  at 10:59:59 (UTC)
 * Reason:Welcome to the gun show :) But seriously, this is a large image of a famous battleship that now meets size requirements and adorns a number of our pages (note I said pages, not articles). As the last of the recommissioned battleships in the Iowa-class this photograph captures a now obsolete gunship for the last time, and as an interesting side note also happens to capture the first deployment of the Block 1 variant of the US Navy's Phalanx CIWS. Listing here for FPC consideration and asking for a small degree of leniency since the battleship in question won't be returning to the high seas.
 * Articles in which this image appears:USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Armament of the Iowa-class battleship National Register of Historic Places listings in Norfolk, Virginia
 * FP category for this image:Given the absence of action here I'd say Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
 * Creator:United States Navy


 * Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 10:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Jobas (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – This decades-old official photo appears to have led the infobox at USS Wisconsin for years. Contrast between the deck and gun turrets/superstructure isn't great. Sca (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Lots of noise and other marks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can not argue that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Very tight crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another non-committal drive-by comment, but I think the scan has too much resolution relative to the available detail in the print. When you magnify at full res, it gets quite muddled and gives you the sensation of looking at a very out-of-focus image. I believe the image would actually be more useful if it were downsampled a bit... which is ironic since your last nomination more than a decade ago failed because the image was too small. :) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you drivelling about in saying "another non-committal drive-by comment"? And before rubbishing my contribution, why not read the FP guidelines that say "Images should not be downsampled" Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about you Charles. Lots of people have been making comments without declaring support or oppose, and I followed suit, not yet knowing which way I'd like to vote. Stop acting like a child at FPC, please. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You made the comment directly underneath my post, so grow up and apologise. Making comments "without declaring support or oppose" is part of the process - in this case a wider crop might have been available, so I should not oppose right away.  Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ...well, yes, newer comments are typically posted at the bottom. That's how Wikipedia discussion threads have always worked. Be assured that if I wanted to reply to you I would have placed an indented comment below yours. I never criticized you or anyone else. Time to take a break perhaps? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Peace is declared... Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks good when viewed at half size. I would support if downsized to 50%. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Charlesjsharp, in reading your comment above, FP criteria doesn't say "Images should not be downsampled", it just says 1500px minimum and larger sizes are preferred. I am generally against downsampling, but this being a retired ship (in some ways a historic photo), I would be Ok with it, just my opinion of course. Bammesk (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't on Wikipedia's FP Criteria page, you are right, my quote was from Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 20:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)