Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dutch Panzerhaubitz fires in Afghanistan.jpg

File:Dutch Panzerhaubitz fires in Afghanistan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 19:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dutch Panzerhaubitz fires in Afghanistan.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dutch Panzerhaubitz fires in Afghanistan.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
•  Info created by Ministerie van Defensie - uploaded by Adnergje - nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I can even forgive the motion blur (top left). --w.carter-Talk 20:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support As I had noticed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nice timing. --Karelj (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose boooom and some people less on this world :-(. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm undecided about whether to support. I'd like the sky to be de-noised a bit first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably not noise, but rather JPEG compression artifact, which cannot really be removed. File size is pretty small for 6MP. --DXR (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. It's regrettable that this is a JPG and not in a less lossy format, but after looking at it again, I think it's worthy of my  Support, in spite of the noise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support great shot! Pun intended... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like what the picture captures, it's a great shot, but I'm just not sure about the file itself with the over compression and resulting JPEG artifacts. -- KTC (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• weak  Oppose – it’s a great shot (of the photographer), and I’d support regardless of ethical opinions about warfare, if only the tank wasn’t that noisy. (Talking of image noise, the acoustic noise was to be expected.) --Kreuzschnabel 14:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support A perfect click at a perfect timing. Good quality. --Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 05:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Noise problem is gone now --The Photographer (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Great job! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You are Welcome Ikan Kekek I was thinking create another alt nomination, however, IMHO in this case is not necesary --The Photographer (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles