Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Image:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg


The picture speaks for itself. Shows the M1 Abrams fitted with the Tank Urban Survival Kit
 * Nominate and support. Anish7 04:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  08:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It certainly illustrates tanks, yes, but is it particularly striking, impressive, beautiful, fascinating, or brilliant? I don't think so. It's just some pictures of tanks and their parts. Sputnik 13:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The often quoted "striking, impressive, beautiful, fascinating, or brilliant" is just a guideline, and anyway, it does add significantly to it's article so I would say it is fascinating. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  19:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a very interesting image. Junes 22:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * . Adds significantly, and this isn't Commons FPC, so "adds significantly" should outweigh any of the catch-words commonly cited. -- brian0918  &#153;  02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Illustrative and very well done. --CVaneg 04:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. "Adds significantly" has always trumped æsthetic concerns, obviously. James F. (talk) 21:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agreed with Sputnik. Enochlau 08:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree it adds significantly to the article in question. But at a resolution images are commonly used the text and smaller images just aren't clear enough to view comfortably. Mgm|(talk) 09:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed in article. Now readable. -- brian0918  &#153;  05:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sure it adds to the article, but it would still be a fine article without it. Also, I find the layout and quality of the picture to be poor given its objective of illustrating the TUSK system. What decided my vote though was the spelling mistake: "reactive armore". -Lommer | talk 03:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Support A nice composite - clean and does the job. --Fir0002 04:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bland and dry, like bad toast. Chicago god 18:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, very poor layout. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Adds signifigantly, and is clear and concise. TomStar81 01:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing special at all. Bland, straightforward, uninteresting. Dzof 11:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.png|15px]] Oppose - Bad and boring. Darwinek 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.png|15px]] Oppose - boring and not especially good layout. Kaldari 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 7 / 10 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame)  14:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)