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

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

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)