Oppose Fails the geocoding requirement (as this is obviously a tank in action and not a studio/promotional photo, a set of coordinates is required). Lycaon (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many tank pictures here on Commons, and apparently no category for firing tanks. Maybe it would be a good idea. At least it would help for reviewing this candidate. Question Is it the shell that is visible on the left on the picture? --Eusebius (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Category:Firing tanks and added the category to the image. If there are enough images I will create subcategories and seperate them. Right now it isn't necessary. @ question: Yes this is the shell. It's one reason why I have chosen this image. In some other images you only see a big fireball. --D-Kuru (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the scope should simply be "Firing tank", since (to the best of my knowledge) the firing depicted here is not really specific to this tank model. I think the tank is best seen in this picture, but the presence of the shell makes the nominated candidate more valuable. I will support nomination as soon as 1) we agree on a scope, 2) a consensus is reached about the geotag (I'm not sure it is necessary here) and 3) I'm convinced that all Commons pictures of firing tanks are in the corresponding category (and provided I find no better picture, of course). --Eusebius (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scope is the firing/shooting tank. I just added the brackets and the information so that the information is included which tank this image shows. I rebuilt the scope a bit. I asked Lycaon why this image requires a geocode. I also don't think that it's necessary, because the scope is the firing tank and not the location around it. Of course a picture of the opera in Sydney should be geocoded. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction between shooting and firing, and which one is represented here? Scope is ambiguous as it is now. Plus, I really think you should drop the additional information in the scope. The scope is not about the picture, it is about what the picture is representative of. The description of the picture goes on the image page. --Eusebius (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
shooting and additional description removed. Firing describes the same action as shooting does. I would prefer firing, because 1) Category is named "firing tanks" 2) "to go shooting" means that you go hunting. (Even it's not an important reason) --D-Kuru (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have preferred simply "Firing tank", but scope is ok for me. Please read "Changes in scope during the review period" at the end of this page, on what to do when you change a scope. I think the geographic info we have on the image page is enough and that geotag is not really needed here if we can't have it. --Eusebius (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Neutral I still maintain that the picture should be somehow geocoded (e.g. with a given radius), so I won't support. Yet I cancel my opposition so that a draw is avoided. Lycaon (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
