Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Abandon Tank: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:49, 3 January 2007

Support and nominate — ¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although it can be cleaned up, it is an encyclopedic picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support; image quality doesn't apply significantly in this image as it is black and white...and that's a good thing,

mind you. Details are sharp even though it is a two-colour image. In short, there's nothing I can find fault with in this picture. -- Alt iris Exeunt 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - image quality regs certainly do apply to b&w images, but I think you mean exceptions can be made if the image is historical, as this one may very well be. That said, it is strongly posterized, which has reduced its effective bit depth. The region around the tree seems to me a flagrant example of distracting blown highlights - a complaint I seldomly lodge about FPCs. Debivort 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm not sure what this picture is supposed to be telling me. Guys jump off of tanks? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The text in the thumbnail pretty much explains it.--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, people abandon tanks by jumping out of them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - FOR TRAINING. How much clearer could I get? If you have a better suggestion please tell.--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not bad, but seems to me a poor scan of a not overly historic/enc image --Fir0002 01:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. poor quality not outweighted by much (any?) historical significance. There are literally thousands of pictures like this available via LOC, this one isn't really outstanding. --Dschwen 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First of all the picture just looks weird. Something just seems wrong with the upper right person. But the main problem is: who does this expand your knowledge of tanks? I have to say it doesn't. The image is of quite high quality for its age, but I believe it should be removed from the article (as redundant and having nothing to do with its location) before being featured. Though it could fit well, unfeatured, in M3 Lee. say1988 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] '''Oppose''' Not bad, but seems to me a poor scan of a not overly historic/enc image --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] 01:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Oppose'''. poor quality not outweighted by much (any?) historical significance. There are literally thousands of pictures like this available via LOC, this one isn't really outstanding. --[[User:Dschwen|Dschwen]] 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose'''. First of all the picture just looks weird. Something just seems wrong with the upper right person. But the main problem is: who does this expand your knowledge of tanks? I have to say it doesn't. [[User:Say1988|say1988]] 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose'''. First of all the picture just looks weird. Something just seems wrong with the upper right person. But the main problem is: who does this expand your knowledge of tanks? I have to say it doesn't. The image is of quite high quality for its age, but I believe it should be removed from the article (as redundant and having nothing to do with its location) before being featured. Though it could fit well, unfeatured, in M3 Lee. [[User:Say1988|say1988]] 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 <!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
 {{-}}