Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Explosions.jpg

Great picture, included in the explosion article. Downloaded from: .

10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added the new nomination date up the top here so the bot doesn't get confused.Raven4x4x 08:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - 82.32.220.62 14:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, totally badass! Tom k&e 12:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Was Previously nominated, but never properly closed, so relisting now and

• Support Night Gyr 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support That ball of burning gas and debris escaping - great! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support even if it is on the small side. Nice pyrotechnics! --Janke | Talk 14:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is one of my photos. I can provide a much higher res version, but we're in the middle of moving right now. It will take me a few days to get the computers set back up and find this in the archive. Two questions - 1) What is considered reasonably good for image size? 2) I'm new around here, even if my photos aren't, so where would I upload this? Anyone have a URL explaining that? --y6y6y6 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Have fun! Mstroeck 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't like it. Not stunning enough. Renata 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with above. Good picture but just not striking. Sotakeit 13:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sort of grimy-looking. Not that war should be glamorized, but one could get a better image of explosions. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to be firebombs rather than what one usually calls explosions. There were images like that in WW II movies, but I think they were napalm.
• Oppose, agree with above; dark background. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. agree with above, I could imagine better illustrations for explosions. This one rather looks like a napalm strike. Mikeo 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not bad, but not special. enochlau (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted . This is in fact ready to archive; it isn't in the right section because the bot kept getting confused for some reason. Raven4x4x 10:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)