Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/M136 AT-4 Rocket Launcher

M136 AT-4 Rocket Launcher edit

This picture caught my eye a while ago and I have decided it could probably be a featured. It's not perfect but I think it's pretty darn good. Although it's perhaps a little underexposed, I think that it better conveys the heat of the exhaust. Also, the projectile is somewhat blurred, but I think that is understandable.

Nominate and support. - Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oo-rah, support. Lots going on and all done very well. --Golbez 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks pretty nice, though a bit larger would be nice. Possibly I'm just spoiled since the screens I have access to are 1400x1050 and 1900x1200 native. chowells 08:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well isn't that special... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 01:44
  - Unfortunately the sarcastic tone of your response suggets you are just being a dick. A shame since I had respect for you previously. I apologise for attempting to explain why I tend to oppose images that I feel are not large enough (e.g. do not fill the screen I am viewing them on). chowells 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - When I read your first post It seemed like you were bragging to me as well. I don't think that either of you two were trying to offend the other. It reflects poorly on people when they let a small incident like this completely change their views of another person. Where's the Wikilove?—WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes I agree, sorry about that, I would have been slightly more diplomatic had I not been drunk :( I'm also sorry if I appeared to be bragging, it did not occur to me that someone might interpret the comment in that way, and it was absolutely not the intention. It also would have been a stupid thing to brag about, considering you buy considerably lower resolution screens for considerably more money ;) (resolution is just about the most important factor for me when buying a display device). That said, I still consider Brian0918's comment to be utterly uncalled for and not befitting of the expected standards of an admin. chowells 22:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, and you will never get one better. Staxringold 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the timing involved on this one reminded me of Image:Casing.jpg--Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be fantastic bigger, but very nice as is Search 4 Lancer 00:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 01:44
Support Be all that you can be! TomStar81 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, works for me. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziggur 01:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the guy is poorly lit compared to the surroundings; thumbnailed he almost looks silhouetted. BigBlueFish 16:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, that's why I liked it, the shadow on the man and the intesity of the exaust convey a sence of heat to me. --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 03:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Let's face it: except for the timing of this pic, it is a dud!!! Poor lighting and composition. If a Wikipedian had taken it, I would be more forgiving. -- P199 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above. Mikeo 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The timing is either very lucky or done with applicable technology. I have always wondered how these things work without killing the guy holding them, and this helps that a lot. War related images are very timely. David R. Ingham 05:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is no quota for FPC... we don't have to try to include a certain number of images from every topic area. It's about images that constitute Wikipedia's best work. WP:WIAFP requires images to be useful, accurate and pleasing to the eye. This is useful and accurate, but not pleasing to the eye. It wouldn't require an amazing feat of talent to make a better version of this photo, if given the equipment and the setting. It doesn't belong here. BigBlueFish 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sure, the subjecti is stunning (and more...), but the photo is not, as has been said. --Janke | Talk 12:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks like a negative of a ghost standing next to an ink spot. --Philopedia 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo is as well done as it could be without a ton of trail and error with grad ND filters and various exposure settings, it's a good capture IMO. PPGMD 15:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]