Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Dutch Army convoy.JPG

File:Royal Dutch Army convoy.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2009 at 19:35:20

Info created by Abigor - uploaded by Abigor - nominated by Abigor -- Huib talk 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Huib talk 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Technically very nice, and good composition including the tilt and dust, but it lacks wow. Propose for Quality Image, and Valued Image for Category:Army of the Netherlands. Downtowngal (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow enough for me. Rama (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – worthy subject, and composition is fine. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the tilt --ianaré (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info There is no "tilt". The camera was horizontal, the ground is just like this. See the barrer on the right of the image, that will give you a reference for the true vertical. Rama (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose also have problems with tilt. If the tilt gets removed it is for sure a QI. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info See above. I have a problem with the colour of the vehicles and the carrying of loaded weapons, but these are facts of life, and the "tilt" is too. Rama (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- not sharp enough. Jonathunder (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree about the tilt. Rama mentioned the barrier on the right, but that looks tilted too. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting image!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The trees in the background are straight, which leads me to conclude that the tilt is, in fact, due to the environment. In any case, the tilt only adds to an interesting composition. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as opposers. Lycaon (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject of image. --Karel (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with that ; but I'm not sure it is the role of FP nominations. Anyway, thank you for opposing with such a good reason. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sumurai8 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressive enough --Tired time (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Featured photo's eventually end up on the main page and on many; many user pages. Do we really want to promote war stuff? --Estrilda (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we already have a lot of FPs taken of/by the US military. Do those who oppose this image also propose removing those pictures' FP status? --Aqwis (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, let us promote war stuff. --Kjetil_r 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tilt.--Avala (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great image! I've got a new wallpaper - Freaky Fries (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No one else seems to have mentioned it, so I've double checked. I'm 99% sure that parts of the sky are blown. I don't think it's a small enough area to forgive. Maedin\^talk 19:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 11 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 08:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]