Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/RG-12

RG-12
Good photographs of non-US armoured vehicles are not all that common, and so I'd like to nominate this photo of a Land Systems OMC RG-12 armoured vehicle. I feel it adds value to the article by being a clear representation of the subject matter, as well as being fairly pleasing to the eye. It is used in the RG-12 article, and the photo is my own.


 * Nominate and support. -  Imp i  09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Shall I be first to say it - it's too small according to FPC Criterion 2. There's nothing that bad about the picture, though not sure it's that special. Perhaps if you have a bigger version you could upload and try nominating that instead? --jjron 11:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not really that interesting. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I think its an interesting picture and it sure is an unusual looking vehicle. -- BWF89 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not interesting or special. --P199 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose> Per above. --Life is like a box of chocolates 00:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's a good picture, but not great enough to be a featured picture. - Pureblade  | Θ 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oooohhh a van how interesting- no offense to the nominator but come on its nothing special.--Childzy 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too small, uninteresting. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Uninteresting, but great picture nonetheless.  I am positive it makes a great contribution to its article.  203.211.68.217 07:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I like the photogrpah, its clear, concise, in focus, and although its reolution is a little low I feel that it still conveys the point. TomStar81 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not featured picture quality. Geoffrey Gibson 15:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose boring colors and background. --Fbv65 e del (discuss 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

~ Veledan • Talk 10:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; It would appear I misinterpreted the FPC criteria regarding image size, as I assumed this would be adequate. Nevertheless, I understand the objections, even while I personally regard the vehicle itself as far more interesting than other subject matter, such as frogs. Personal opinion, I guess. &mdash;  Imp i  14:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I find the PICTURE uninteresting, not the subject. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 14:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My comment was directed more at Childzy's sarcastic "Oooohhh a van how interesting" comment. I'm not even close to being a good enough photographer to believe my photos themselves are uniformly good or interesting. &mdash;  Imp i  16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm right there with you. I have tons of photos I've taken, many of them useful to articles (as is your nice RG12 photo), but none that I'm confident are truly up to FP standards. I guess we'll both have to keep honing our crafts. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The "oooohhhh" comment is not new to the FPC process, but if it makes you feel any better a fellow wikipedian wrote "A shiny penny. Ho-hum" during the Licoln Cent FPC and that image still managed to get featured. The important thing to remember is never give up ;) TomStar81 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, I guess I'll have to admit that the photo just wasn't up to it. Ah well, thanks for the comments and the votes guys. Besides, failure's not a bad thing, it's a great way of telling us what not to do. :P &mdash;  Imp i  22:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)