34:
178:- I have seen this picture many times and it is very cool and striking. Futhermore, I have also thought about nominating this many times but each time i have thought better of it. Obviously it is a big event and a bit rare but nevertheless it is not FP material. I think if this was passed then we are
232:
I understand the technical objections; in my view they are offset by the usefulness of the image. This image superbly illustrates the relative sizes of the different classes of warships-- for example; would you have guessed without seeing this image that the French
Charles de Gaulle carrier is
288:
I was going to support this till I opened it at full size. Quality is pretty terrible, and it could do with downsampling because there's very little detail in the ships anyway (not that that would bring it up to standard), and there's something really weird going on with that sea.
233:
nearly the size of a U.S. Navy Nimitz-class carrier, while the RN's Ocean is dwarfed in comparison? Sure, a table of figures would also present that information, but this image does so in such a dramatic and intuitive way.
194:
Why does should this be considered one of our best photos? And i hope like me you realise a picture does not have to
Featured to prove its worth because this picture undoubtedly has that worth but it isn't our best work and
47:
A bit blurry, but an extraordinary depiction of a variety of naval vessels (including, among other things, aircraft carriers of four different classes from three different navies)
375:
365:
17:
370:
351:
305:
293:
280:
262:
237:
223:
170:
158:
144:
328:
66:
182:, whether or not it is an FP the image is still good and useful so why pass it. It goes against a few requirements and
86:
112:
54:
94:
90:
316:
78:
346:
276:
the picture is very noisy & unsharp at full res, but I guess it looks fine at the small resolution
124:
70:
277:
247:
340:
324:
259:
234:
213:
141:
62:
104:
301:
lack of detail is unfortunate. Relative scale of the ships could be shown with a diagram.
154:
120:
82:
74:
53:
A rare occurence of a 5-country multinational fleet, photographed in April 2002 during
359:
320:
302:
255:
58:
202:
116:
290:
33:
167:
313:. I like it, but it's not unique enough to overcome quality issues.
103:
Most of the individual ship articles mentioned in the caption; plus
190:
in my opinion. So what you need to ask yourselves when voting is,
57:
in the Oman Sea. In four descending columns, from left to right:
108:
180:
merely giving something FP status for the sake of it
250:is a more direct comparison. Smaller yes, but not
152:A good picture. The sea looks a bit funny though--
8:
93:(F 831) of the Royal Netherlands Navy; and
28:Warships of five navies in parade formation
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
376:Featured picture nominations/October 2007
32:
246:is a helicopter air assault craft; the
7:
366:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
197:it would be wrong to promote this
133:PH3 ALTA I. CUTLER (U.S. Navy)
100:Articles this image appears in
1:
61:(F 570) of the Italian navy,
371:Featured picture nominations
352:08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
97:(D 560) of the Italian navy.
95:ITS Luigi Durand de la Penne
77:(F 711) of the French navy;
65:(D 612) of the French navy;
306:19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
294:16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
281:00:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
263:11:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
238:02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
224:22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
171:22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
159:21:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
145:21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
73:(R 91) of the French navy;
69:(CVN 74) of the U.S. Navy,
392:
113:Operation Enduring Freedom
89:(CV 67) of the U.S. Navy;
81:(CG-73) of the U.S. Navy;
55:Operation Enduring Freedom
184:it is technically poor
40:
36:
139:Support as nominator
125:Modern naval tactics
71:FS Charles de Gaulle
248:HMS Ark Royal (R07)
127:, and a few others.
87:USS John F. Kennedy
85:of the Royal Navy;
67:USS John C. Stennis
41:
332:
319:comment added by
383:
349:
343:
314:
242:(Of course, the
222:
219:
216:
208:
205:
157:
105:Aircraft carrier
91:HNLMS Van Amstel
83:HMS Ocean (L 12)
50:Proposed caption
391:
390:
386:
385:
384:
382:
381:
380:
356:
355:
347:
341:
217:
214:
206:
203:
200:
153:
121:Surface warfare
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
389:
387:
379:
378:
373:
368:
358:
357:
337:Not promoted
334:
333:
308:
296:
283:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
227:
226:
188:inexcusably so
173:
161:
147:
135:
134:
131:
128:
101:
98:
79:USS Port Royal
51:
48:
45:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
388:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
363:
361:
354:
353:
350:
344:
338:
330:
326:
322:
318:
312:
309:
307:
304:
300:
297:
295:
292:
287:
284:
282:
279:
275:
272:
271:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:
239:
236:
231:
230:
229:
228:
225:
221:
220:
210:
209:
198:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
172:
169:
165:
162:
160:
156:
151:
148:
146:
143:
140:
137:
136:
132:
129:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
99:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
60:
59:ITS Maestrale
56:
52:
49:
46:
43:
42:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
336:
335:
310:
298:
285:
273:
251:
243:
235:Spikebrennan
212:
201:
196:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
163:
149:
142:Spikebrennan
138:
63:FS De Grasse
37:
27:
315:—Preceding
117:Naval fleet
360:Categories
254:small.) --
155:Phoenix 15
75:FS Surcouf
278:Atomsgive
329:contribs
321:Dhartung
317:unsigned
303:Debivort
256:Dhartung
38:Original
342:Chris B
286:Oppose.
164:support
150:Support
130:Creator
311:Oppose
299:Oppose
274:Oppose
176:Oppose
44:Reason
291:jjron
244:Ocean
16:<
348:talk
325:talk
260:Talk
204:Chil
192:why?
168:Mbz1
109:Navy
339:--
207:dzy
362::
345:•
327:•
289:--
258:|
252:as
218:lk
215:Ta
211:¤
199:--
186:,
166:--
123:,
119:,
115:,
111:,
107:,
331:)
323:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
