Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It does not show much of the fields. It shows the back of a lorry. It shows about 100 to 200 yards of the road on the brow of a hill. Snowman (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice looking picture, but I don't think it has sufficient EV. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per low EV concerns. And that would be a truck. Cowtowner (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In bad British accent:Ay, mate. Wikipedia doesn't mandate American English. If he wants to call it a lorry, he can. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 08:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke buddy. =) Cowtowner (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Snowmanradio and Noodle snacks. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 08:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In all seriousness, how would a road be better illustrated? J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The actual features of the surface of the road and the line markings on the road are very visible, but this discussion is entitled "Wheat fields and truck in Eastern Washington". Snowman (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the title is. The image appears in U.S. Route 2 in Washington and if you agree that it has EV, then that is it. --H92110 (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be difficult to illustrate a road, I would perfer an elevated image showing a longer stretch of the road or maybe an area that's particularly notable along it's route. It's also possible there may not be any good way to make a FP quality illustrative picture of a road. Just because you can't think of a better way doesn't mean there isn't a better way or location. This image has no "wow factor" for me, and therefore I Oppose it. — raeky(talk | edits) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the title doesn't matter, the way it illustrates the road and where it appears in the article do. The area of road shown is very limited, and it appears in the references section of the article. Cowtowner (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it illustrates the road particularly well as the photo could have been taken anywhere. Need either identifiable landmarks or a shot from higher up. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. EV is particularly high in illustrating Route 2. I've moved it up in that article from the references section. It also illustrates the geography articles by showing the relatively dry wheatfields of that part of the country, and the importance of road-transport and the large high quality roads that span Washington. Its use in the transport article is well placed. As far as quality goes, it's a great image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The EV towards Transportation in the US, or the geographic area are quite low, IMO. And as for the route... I dunno. Seems a bit flimsy to me. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice image, low EV though. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per low EV for the cited articles. Could have better EV for a "tandem trailer" article, but oddly enough, such an article does not exist. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --ZooFari 19:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
