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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

M1 Abrams with the Tank Urban Survival Kit
M1 Abrams with the Tank Urban Survival Kit

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 • 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 • talk 19:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a very interesting image. Junes 22:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Adds significantly, and this isn't Commons FPC, so "adds significantly" should outweigh any of the catch-words commonly cited. --brian0918™ 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™ 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose - Bad and boring. Darwinek 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - boring and not especially good layout. Kaldari 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)



Not promoted 7 / 10 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)