Original -
U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant Tanya Breed demonstrates a
Barrett .50 caliber rifle during a special operations training course at
Hurlburt Field,
Florida.Edit1 - crop, clone out some highlights at right, selective levels adjust in the dust cloud.
Reason
A training demonstration of the Barrett .50 photographed with the cartridge in the air exiting the chamber. A good demonstration of the weapon in operation and a high resolution file. As noted at peer review, none of the 105 images at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Gallery depicts a female servicemember on active duty. It'd be good to remedy that shortcoming and this seems to fit the bill on technical and encyclopedic merit.
Oppose Mildly uninteresting. The picture is just not compelling, and seeking something more compelling in the articles turns up nothing. --
Blechnic (
talk)
00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose. Encyclopedically speaking, it's quite a nice image. However, the quality is lacking. The image seems to bright (or at leas the colors are washed out), very little is in focus, the background is distracting, and her back looks close to being blown. I checked with the eyedropper and there's nothing at 255-255-255, but it's getting close. NauticaShades00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The other spent cartridges taper in the front; I think you're seeing the tapered portion not the bullet. Otherwise I don't understand what I'm looking at.
Fletcher (
talk)
03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Grrrr... This was the one that got the best overall responses at peer review. While I respect the responses, what's peer review for if the difference in feedback is this great?
DurovaCharge!01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
C'est la wiki. And I think it got mixed reviews not unambiguous support. Personally I was favoring your second and third submissions.
Fletcher (
talk)
03:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm with this one. While the quality deteriorates at the largest sizes, I think it has enough at lower ones (although still well above the size minima). It also has sufficient "interest" and dynamic and evocative colours in my opinion, to gather my support. The background isn't to everyone's taste, but is a plus for me.
Mostlyharmless (
talk)
07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Original. It's a good pic technically, but I find the background distracting, and the subject is not presented in a very interesting manner. Neutral Edit The edit dealt with most of my concerns, and the rest of my objections, while preventing a support, aren't big enough for me to oppose.
Clegs (
talk)
18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. haha I like how it shows something happening (not just a still picture) and how you can see her reaction. I also like the background. But that's just me, and the quality is an issue for some people.
Intothewoods29 (
talk)
20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1 - I am partial to this photo, but recognized the problems others have seen in it. Here is a crop / and minor clone job that gets rid of most of the uneven lighting. I also did a selective levels adjust to bring out some detail in the dust cloud.
deBivort22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose No reason this should get fast tracked just because its a woman in the army. Almost nothing is in sharp focus due to the shutter speed and the smoke.
Noodle snacks (
talk)
12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Does it help that she's in the Air Force? ;) Seriously, it's used in the article about the weapon and the military base, not at the history of women in armed services (although that would be an encyclopedic purpose too).
DurovaCharge!17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Blechnic. Nothing particularly impressive is being demonstrated here. If a male was depicted in this picture, you wouldn't even consider nominating it.
67.174.4.2 (
talk)
02:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
From above: "Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." Please sign in or sign up to contribute to the discussion. NauticaShades23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Original -
U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant Tanya Breed demonstrates a
Barrett .50 caliber rifle during a special operations training course at
Hurlburt Field,
Florida.Edit1 - crop, clone out some highlights at right, selective levels adjust in the dust cloud.
Reason
A training demonstration of the Barrett .50 photographed with the cartridge in the air exiting the chamber. A good demonstration of the weapon in operation and a high resolution file. As noted at peer review, none of the 105 images at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Gallery depicts a female servicemember on active duty. It'd be good to remedy that shortcoming and this seems to fit the bill on technical and encyclopedic merit.
Oppose Mildly uninteresting. The picture is just not compelling, and seeking something more compelling in the articles turns up nothing. --
Blechnic (
talk)
00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose. Encyclopedically speaking, it's quite a nice image. However, the quality is lacking. The image seems to bright (or at leas the colors are washed out), very little is in focus, the background is distracting, and her back looks close to being blown. I checked with the eyedropper and there's nothing at 255-255-255, but it's getting close. NauticaShades00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The other spent cartridges taper in the front; I think you're seeing the tapered portion not the bullet. Otherwise I don't understand what I'm looking at.
Fletcher (
talk)
03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Grrrr... This was the one that got the best overall responses at peer review. While I respect the responses, what's peer review for if the difference in feedback is this great?
DurovaCharge!01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
C'est la wiki. And I think it got mixed reviews not unambiguous support. Personally I was favoring your second and third submissions.
Fletcher (
talk)
03:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm with this one. While the quality deteriorates at the largest sizes, I think it has enough at lower ones (although still well above the size minima). It also has sufficient "interest" and dynamic and evocative colours in my opinion, to gather my support. The background isn't to everyone's taste, but is a plus for me.
Mostlyharmless (
talk)
07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Original. It's a good pic technically, but I find the background distracting, and the subject is not presented in a very interesting manner. Neutral Edit The edit dealt with most of my concerns, and the rest of my objections, while preventing a support, aren't big enough for me to oppose.
Clegs (
talk)
18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support. haha I like how it shows something happening (not just a still picture) and how you can see her reaction. I also like the background. But that's just me, and the quality is an issue for some people.
Intothewoods29 (
talk)
20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1 - I am partial to this photo, but recognized the problems others have seen in it. Here is a crop / and minor clone job that gets rid of most of the uneven lighting. I also did a selective levels adjust to bring out some detail in the dust cloud.
deBivort22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose No reason this should get fast tracked just because its a woman in the army. Almost nothing is in sharp focus due to the shutter speed and the smoke.
Noodle snacks (
talk)
12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Does it help that she's in the Air Force? ;) Seriously, it's used in the article about the weapon and the military base, not at the history of women in armed services (although that would be an encyclopedic purpose too).
DurovaCharge!17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Blechnic. Nothing particularly impressive is being demonstrated here. If a male was depicted in this picture, you wouldn't even consider nominating it.
67.174.4.2 (
talk)
02:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
From above: "Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." Please sign in or sign up to contribute to the discussion. NauticaShades23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply