Found this in the tank article, it caught my eye. It apparently caught someone else's eye too, because it listed as a valued pictured over at the commons, so I thought I'd let it loose here and see if its got what it takes to obtain an FPC star here.
Commons user MathKnight and flicker user Zachi Evenor
Support as nominator –
TomStar81 (
Talk) 16:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support both This amends my !vote to include the alt.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 18:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose QI (quality image) over at Commons and possibly a reasonable candidate for valued image there, but I think that's the limit for this image. If the lighting were better, if the tank were in motion or firing, you might have an FP. As is, the light is pretty dull and there's nothing special enough for FP IMO.
lNeverCry 05:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per
Never. Low contrast, static. Better choice would be something like at right.
Sca (
talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC) ⇒reply
Found this in the tank article, it caught my eye. It apparently caught someone else's eye too, because it listed as a valued pictured over at the commons, so I thought I'd let it loose here and see if its got what it takes to obtain an FPC star here.
Commons user MathKnight and flicker user Zachi Evenor
Support as nominator –
TomStar81 (
Talk) 16:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support both This amends my !vote to include the alt.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 18:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose QI (quality image) over at Commons and possibly a reasonable candidate for valued image there, but I think that's the limit for this image. If the lighting were better, if the tank were in motion or firing, you might have an FP. As is, the light is pretty dull and there's nothing special enough for FP IMO.
lNeverCry 05:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per
Never. Low contrast, static. Better choice would be something like at right.
Sca (
talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC) ⇒reply