Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/FA-18 Hornet breaking sound barrier (7 July 1999).jpg

FA-18 Hornet breaking sound barrier (7 July 1999)

 * Reason:disappointing at full resolution, ruined by low frequency digital noise and blurred as a result no fine detail or sharpness left. Thisglad (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominator: Thisglad (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; Thisglad (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please inform the original uploader as required and clearly indicated in the instructions above. Thanks, Pstuart84 Talk 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * he has been notified on commons, also this had already been done before you asked Thisglad (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked his WP account - apologies for getting this one wrong. Pstuart84 Talk 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * no problem, i think he is inactive anyway Thisglad (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just interested - why would you notify a WP delist on Commons? I think Duffman has been active here more recently than Commons anyway. May not hurt to notify the original nominator as well, since it wasn't the creator, as suggested in the guidelines - User:ChrisO definitely is still active. I want to vote keep on this because it's such a good photo, but quality is bad; I'd like to see a better version if possible. --jjron (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If an image is uploaded to commons then the commons user is the uploader that should be notified don't you think? Also there isn't any proof that the .en user is the same as the commons user. Thisglad (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For a Commons FP, yes. But for an enWiki FP they should be notified on Wikipedia, unless they don't have a Wiki account. (I know where I'd want to be notified for a delist; if you notified me on Commons it would most likely be gone and forgotten before I ever knew about it). Possibly valid point if you can't identify that the user is the same at Commons and Wiki, having said which I can't think of a single instance where I've seen different people having the same username on Commons and Wikipedia, though I'm sure there must be cases. --jjron (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom.--Mfield (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist Grainy, and if you look at the jet, it's not good. Spencer  T♦C 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If there's a better version available, it's not turning up for me. The photos on the various .mil websites are all versions of this one. A slightly better, though different pic can be found here, but it doesn't have the same visual appeal. This also is slightly better quality and is actually on Commons already. I am beginning to think that planes zipping along at mach one do not an easy subject make. :) This was the best one I found, but it's no great shakes. Matt Deres (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * another reason for the lack of appeal is because it was likely taken with a film camera, which are grainy at high ISO film but the color noise is largely generated by the scanner unlike digital cameras, analog equipment does not have that effect, so this is likely a poor quality scan of a mediocre image Thisglad (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Sure quality isn't great, but it's a stunning photo and widely used, so I'm willing to give it some leeway. Probably amongst the most eyecatching FPs we have. None of the others Matt links to come close to this for composition; I'm also suspecting this subject is not something you're going to snap off on a day at the park. If anyone can show me otherwise I may reconsider. --jjron (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this image cannot be easily reproduced. It must be a very lucky shot, in addition to requiring another supersonic "camera platform"... --Janke | Talk 07:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * for comparison see the 2005 image of the same aircraft model breaking the sound barrier in the same geographic location, and it is obviously not blurred and artifacted to the same degree as well as being higher resolution. The inferior quality of this image is clearly not because of the shooting conditions. Thisglad (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Compositionally I think the original is still the best, but should it be delisted, which it probably will be, I would support a nomination of the alt posted here. --jjron (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 *  weak delist The composition is beautiful and the thumbnail is stunning, but the full-size shot is just horrible. I can appreciate that it's not easily reproducible, but the fact that I found three alternates in a few minutes indicates that the stunt has been done several times in the past and very likely will be done again. The FPs should be the best that WP has to offer, but clicking on this photo is just disappointing. If there was any kind of historical aspect to this shot (is there?), I would probably switch. Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it requires another transonic camera platform. A lot of the videos and stills online seem to be shot from the decks of aircraft carriers and other ships, most likely because that's the environment with the most supersonic planes and high moisture environment that will result in somebody capturing a shot of it. If we are going to see a better shot of this phenomenon, I'd bet its from somebody with a the right camera/lens and panning technique on board a ship rather than in the air. In addition, in the right environment this is probably a very repeatable and predictable event, you just need to be in on an aircraft carrier to maximize your chances of seeing it :) Mfield (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - so next time you're out on your aircraft carrier and your mate's going supersonic in his fighter jet, can you take a few snaps for us? ;-) --jjron (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, from Flickr, to prove that better images exist [], [], [], although not under CC Mfield (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

'''I have added new versions of the images. I have removed the grain, but I myself have doubts about the images actually being better. As for now, I keep myself from voting.''' diego_pmc (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. Put FA18C breaking sound barrier 2005 - filtered.jpg through FPC.  crassic ![ talk ] 02:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist - Grain is horrible even at 800px wide, colours appear to have been reduced to 256 or less (see shadows) and the full size image is not sharp (nor are any of the altered ones with reduced grain). Compare with Image:Su-27 on landing.jpg. As mentioned above, I've seen video footage of this effect from aircraft carriers so a good quality photo should be pretty easy with a decent camera. --Ozhiker (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)