Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mark I tank from World War I

Mark I tank from World War I

 * Reason: This tank was one of the first to be used ever in combat, during the Battle of the Somme. What makes this picture special is the fact that its design is quite unique, the picture quality is very high for a photograph from 1916, and the subject is enhanced by several British Army soldiers.


 * Articles this image appears in:British Army, Mark I tank, Tanks in World War I, Battle of the Somme, History of the tank, Portal:British Army/Selected picture, and more
 * Creator:User:Gsl in Commons, taken by Lt. Ernest Brooks of the British Army


 * Support as nominator-  Monsieur dl    mon talk 03:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 700 × 524 pixels, file size: 216 KB. Is a larger version available?  Durova  369 07:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did create a larger one, albeit the rules do allow exceptions for historical photographs. The derivative I created is at the Commons here, so that is not a problem.
 * Did you just rescale File:British Mark I male tank Somme 25 September 1916.jpg to a larger size?©Geni 16:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * comment It's not that unique. For example this is the first offical photo of a tank (it's not the first photo though, photos of Little Willie and "Mother" exist). Higher quality versions probably exist but they are likely held by the imperial war museum but they are seriously stingy with their archives.©Geni 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is one of the first to be used in combat because of the period (September, 1916), and it is unlike others because of the large amount of other features in the photo, as I mentioned.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 13:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Upsampling is not a good way to attempt to meet featured picture criteria, and the restoration was uploaded over the original filename.  Certainly encyclopedic, but not feature-worthy.  As a side note, fellow FPC regulars please review the WWI FP gallery, especially the oldest promotions near the top of the page.  Our project's refusal to delist that material may have contributed to the misunderstandings in this discussion.  Durova  369 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have met the criteria, as it is a historical photograph where no example of a larger resolution is available, so that most certainly is not a reason to oppose. However, not feature-worthy is an opinion to oppose that I can accept as legitimate even though IMO I think it is feature worthy.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just posted to your talk page on this photo... thanks for the note!  Monsieur dl    mon talk 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose As the image Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916.jpg illustrates, there are WWI photos of high quality and sufficient size for FP status. This is not one of them... Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose; nothing special here. It's small, and I'm not seeing any reason to ignore our usual guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, it does not go against the 'usual guidelines, and I quote: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed" and "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired." If you will judge this photograph based upon standards of color images taken with modern land cameras, digital cameras, what have you, then by this standard you are rejecting outstanding historical photographs, and that to me is a shame. Call it not as interesting, call it not your cup of tea, but please do not tell me that it doesn't meet the basic guidelines for consideration.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is a wealth of other tank images on most of the pages where this image appears. While it is certainly more dramatic than most, I don't see a compelling reason to ignore the size requirments as we do with other images. Cowtowner (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)