Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Army-fgm148.jpg

FGM-148 Javelin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 04:27:40 (UTC)

Original - U.S. Army soldiers firing an FGM-148 Javelin.

Reason: Excellent image of this weapon in action. Very good EV.
Articles in which this image appears: FGM-148 Javelin, Anti-tank guided missile, Missile, List of currently active missiles of the United States military
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry
Creator: United States Army

Support as nominator --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this image presented at such a small size?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have trouble with the flame being cut off.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like the image quality, but not a fan of the composition. The flame at the back is cutoff - I don't know what it's importance is, but pictorially it looks bad. Possibly more importantly, that dude nearest to camera is obscuring too much of the weapon, in particular he makes it hard to tell that this is a shoulder-fired weapon so compromising EV; until I read the description I had thought this was mounted in place. An image like this, though of low quality, shows the weapon use much better. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The gas coming out the back stops significant recoil from affecting the operator, so it is important in that sense. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, but I disagree. Even a high-quality shot from that angle wouldn't depict the device as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, maybe you are right! Check these out: 1 and 2. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or maybe I am! Check out these two: and . The one from the side seems clearly better to me, although the missile hasn't come out yet. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would nominate those two as a set.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I too thought it was mounted and as stated above have a problem with the flame being cut off.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm afraid to say I agree with the above. This shot just isn't quite there. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per jjron et all. Gazhiley (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Dude obscures too much of the subject. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]