Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SM3 from JDS Kongo.jpg

File:SM3 from JDS Kongo.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2009 at 10:15:52

•  Info created by U.S. Navy - uploaded by Killkatayama - nominated by ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not too keen on poor quality war propaganda. Lycaon (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question How on earth is that Propaganda? Certainly, it's a military picture, but it's a beautiful shot. Can I have some constructive feedback on how to improve my submissions? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Less violence/threat ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer images of military equipment to be strictly factual, no lighting, background, composition and perspective that tries to make an aesthetic impression - which is a sign of propaganda. --Tsui (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Aren't those the hallmarks of Featured Pictures though? The picture you describe seems more suited for Valued or Quality Images. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Kuvaly (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Lycaon. Showing a lethal weapon with cool fire and lighting effects is nothing I want to see or be featured. --norro 15:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Bad quality, but wow! Awesome! There's also other great pictures of same missile. —kallerna™ 16:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It must be hard to photography something moving very fast. →Diti the penguin — 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for blown whites, but specifically not for political reasons. Durova (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Lycaon --AngMoKio (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Wow -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose to quote a statement from above: I'm not too keen on poor quality war propaganda --Tsui (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment About propaganda... I think this type of image could be used for anti-war purposes as much as government propaganda. The inhumane environment (fire, steel, rockets) killing humans hundreds of kilometers away, the easy comparaison between state-of-the-art, multi-million dollars technology fighting against illiterate and poor guerrilla fighters, with what seems to be the sun obscured by smoke (it's not the sun, but looks like it) can be a dystopic interpretation of this image used by anti-war groups as much as it can be a interpreted as a demonstration of power from the government. My opinion, very subjective. --S23678 (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support wow included. also good comment by S23678. --Jklamo (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral As Diti the penguin — Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Santiago Martín (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with S23678's comment above-- this photograph may be viewed through multiple different sociopolitical lenses. Notyourbroom (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Lycaon is right

result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)