Oppose. Well below size requirements. See the criteria, specifically point 2. It looks like there is an original TIFF available for that image and at 180mb, it should be much higher resolution. Also, the image description seems a bit tasteless as is. I can see now that it's the original image's propaganda title, but it probably should be stated a bit more clearly, lest it offend. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and uploaded a jpeg version of the original unrestored tiff file. It's got plenty of res, but will remain neutral for now. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks almost comically posed. Extremely dark and vignetted. Might have some EV for the WWII list article, but I wouldn't put it in the Hand grenade article since that article already has better images that are similar. Kaldari (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much EV for hand grenade. Doesnt look real either, like a wax work almost (not opposing for this reason) --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen more realistic waxworks in Madame Tussauds. Must be the lighting or something --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was also going to say the same thing. Weird. upstateNYer 05:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed on the subject looking very 'waxy', some of the waxworks I've seen are terrible and this would fit right in with them, and the picture is far too dark.Silvestra (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, looks extremely fake. As has been said, very waxy, too dark, he's pulling that expression... Looks very posed, like something out of a videogame cinematic. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor lighting for an encyclopedic photograph. Cacophony (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
