Self nom, meets criterion 1 (added on 30th October), meets criterion 2, good lighting to maximize visible detail. Is also useful from an educational perspective as it provides a closeup of Battenburg markings. Is not an FP, is licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 (criterion 3&4).
Comment While I appreciate the background isn't brilliant, I disagree that the colours are over-focussed- if you look at the full size image, I think you will see what I mean. I think that the image has a high EV, for the following reasons. In all three articles this is used in, it illustrates something well: in Bedfordshire Police, it provides a detailed picture of their operational fleet, the force's logo is also visible. In Battenburg markings, the image is prominently displayed (not in the gallery) with a good caption, and it is the only closeup of British police battenburg markings on a modern-day motorcycle. And lastly, in Police motorcycle, while in a gallery, the image is the only one of a British Police Motorcycle on that page. Acather96 (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the criteria, in fact this is the first nomination I have seen where evidence that each section of the criteria has been met is provided, often nominations will just say 'High EV' etc. Furthermore, the paragraph above explains how the image is valuable to the encyclopedia (it's worth noting it is not in a gallery in Battenburg markings). And lasly, in terms of the background and the genuinley tiny part of the motorcycle that has been cut off, I draw your attention to criterion 2c which states:
Ok. But as Spongie said, it is in gallery of the main article. Plus the cut-off lessens EV. I see that the appearance rule doesn't mean it distracts it's Ev (because of unmatching colurs) by it's appearance. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 08:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
