Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coat of arms of the British Antarctic Territory.svg

File:Coat of arms of the British Antarctic Territory.svg, featured

•  Info created by Masur - uploaded by Masur - nominated by Szczepan1990
  Very nice, colorful coat of arms, based on [1]. Already featured on polish-wiki and possesed the title of quality image. --Szczepan talk  12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Szczepan talk  12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 13:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - good work! Schimmelreiter 08:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Jeses 13:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca [re] 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment May I ask for a reason of your negative vote?Masur 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Not special enough. The kitschy design doesn't help either. - Alvesgaspar 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info Sorry, but it wasn't me who design this COA ;). I've just svg'ed it. Masur 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  SupportWpedzich 10:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ala z 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment If you will fix the text (place it on the path or sth), you've got my support vote. It is important in SVG to draw every single detail. Hołek ҉ 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Support, but I had to do it myself. ;) Hołek ҉ 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose There are better COA's because of their beauty colours, complexity & details, well SVGed... but this... why? There are datails which will look better with gradients (penguin, helmet) and the lion looks bad drawn: Not special enough. --Dachi 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  So nominate them too. There are so few featured SVG, that is even hard to find some "quality templates" and help to improve your own work with them. Masur 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --WarX 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Ugly as original image ;)
•  Support --Winiar^✉ 08:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment How could this image become featured without source information? This nomination says that it is based on [2] so this is clearly a derivative work. But the image description does not mention the original image or its copyright status. /90.229.135.239 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)