Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-36 tracked gear

B-36 tracked gear

 * Reason:High-quality image of a strange and unique piece of equipment. I cropped out the one major flaw in the original (a line on the right side of the photo).
 * Articles this image appears in:Convair B-36, Undercarriage, Continuous track
 * Creator:United States Air Force

Restarting nomination. Please note that the cleaned up version was uploaded on top of the original. MER-C 07:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Nice cleanup. High EV. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for cleaned-up version; see my earlier remarks.--Pete Tillman (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my statement last time--Extremely boring aesthetically, and low EV, because we can't really tell scale or how it works. Clegs (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aesthetics didn't stop other boring images from being promoted. The image provides a great deal of information about how this experiment fifty years ago worked. Shock absorbers and brake fluid lines are clearly visable. The damage to the turf gives a real sense of the mass of the aircraft. Finally, the article has enough good images of the aircraft that the reader could reasonably infer the scale of the gear even without the benifit of someone holding a coloured meter stick. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say the other one actually is interesting aesthetically, but I was taking a sabbatical while that one was promoted, so I didn't vote there. Not being the most mechanically oriented person in the world, I can guess what might be the shock absorbers and brake lines, but it's nothing more than a guess, so it is still difficult to see how this works. As far as scale, IMO an FP's EV should be stand-alone, not dependent on inferences from one of the articles it's in. I can't tell if these are four inches wide, or a foot wide. Basically, to sum up, if this were a labelled SVG, I'd support as a no-brainer. But as it is now, it's just too blah, and I can't find enough EV in it to make up for that. Clegs (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw you didn't vote on that one, don't worry, thats not my point anyway. I was just citing an example of a boring image which had been promoted :). --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A strong image with high encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support again Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I never realized that this experiment had been done, and a caterpillar track on an aircraft's landing gear is such an unexpected sight that it really should be featured, IMHO. As for the scale, I think the texture of the grass, as well as the size of the hydraulic connectors and the undercarriage, give me a good enough idea. --Slashme (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Much better now.  Spencer T♦C 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)