Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mark IV female tank

Mark IV female tank
Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2013 at 06:01:02 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality image of one of the five surviving female British World War I Mark IV tanks; high EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mark IV tank
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
 * Creator:Peter Trimming


 * Support as nominator --—Bruce1eetalk 06:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Fails to meet minimum size requirements.  Centy  – [ reply ] • contribs  – 16:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Honestly guys, if that is true then the rule is silly and needs looking at. The size of this picture is completely adequate for its purpose. 86.130.67.47 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I view the minimum size requirements as not set in stone, and I think this photo is close enough. The photo has good EV and technical quality. It's only short about 150 pixels on one side, and the other side is about 2000 pixels, so I think this photo's size fulfills the spirit of the rule. --Pine✉ 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Minimum size requirements: I know what they are and I'm normally careful to check before nominating, but, to be honest, on this occasion I just forgot; but I still stand by my nomination, because, as others have pointed out, it is just below the minimum requirement, and the technical quality is good. —Bruce1eetalk 06:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't really see a compelling reason to disregard the size requirement here. The tank is a large and demands more resolution; plus, it's not going anywhere. Cowtowner (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose For size. Weak Support I think it's probably OK EV with it's current usage, and the limitations of background and stuff isn't solvable since that's it's current location in the museum. But I'd MUCH rather support an actual histprical image as a FP for this tank, like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/drakegoodman/5406694099/ which isn't uploaded, but very high resolution. It's tagged with a NC license, but it wouldn't be in copyright so it should be uploadable.... —  raeky  t  23:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above issues size wise... It can easily be re-taken at correct size requirements... If we start bending rules without genuine reason then it'll all decend into anarchy! ;-) hehe Support as new improved size uploaded.. gaz hiley  10:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not a huge advocate for this being an FP ... I don't think the composition is great for a start ... but I'm really struggling to see why the size is a problem for so many people. 99% of people will be looking at this on a screen, in which case the only reason for having resolution much more than typical screen resolution is to allow people to zoom in on areas of detail. Here I just don't see where is the detail that anyone would want to zoom in on to microscopic level. OK, you can't read the tiny print on the notice, but would you really expect to? As far as printing it is concerned, too, you could practically print it poster size before noticing any degradation. Unless anyone is wanting a very large-format very high-quality print, where is the problem? I don't get it. 86.171.43.156 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding your screen resolution argument, one of the reasons for the image size requirement is for "future-proofing" as future screens get better. A man in 1995 might say, "Why do we need pictures greater than 640 &times; 480? 99% of computers only display 640 &times; 480." Even on my current screen, this picture does not take up all the screen space viewed at native resolution. In addition, we expect the images to be usable for all purposes, including print. The current resolution is not acceptable for "poster-size" as you have mentioned. At typical 300 dpi quality, this picture is only good for a print that's 6.8 inches across. dllu (t,c) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment High resolution file provided by Peter Trimming on request has uploaded over. Original file and the license (CC BY 2.0) are available at http://www.geograph.org.uk/more.php?id=3376211 (login required) and at http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3376211 (click more sizes). J Kadavoor J e e 14:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jkadavoor, thank you very much for requesting a high resolution file from Peter Trimming and uploading it. I really appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 14:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the new high resolution version is sharp and technically fine. The composition is rather mediocre but seeing as there are only 4 surviving female Mark IV tanks, which are all in museums, it would be near impossible to get a better photo. Although Liberty is in a somewhat easier to photograph environment, it is in a poorer condition (e.g. missing guns). dllu (t,c) 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per dllu. J Kadavoor J e e 13:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose; historical pictures would have much higher EV, like the one linked to above. Also, don't like the busy composition — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 06:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)