Strong delist, weak do not replace. Clear improvement. I would not object to the new image having to go through a nomination itself. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed per Avenue's comments. J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delist and replace - God knows how the original passed - the animation is so much clearer and understandable whereas the original rather misses the attempt to track by the enemy. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, don't replace. When it went through a removal request in 2006, some people were concerned that the people were moving too fast in the animation relative to the bullets. I agree. --Avenue (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, prefer to also replace: Animation is superior, and it's not moving too fast. I think it would be unfortunate if it were any slower. Maedin\talk 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist, don't replace yet If the proposed replacement was slowed down slightly, I would strongly support it as a FP. It may be good enough as it is, but it would be more effective if someone were to add a very brief pause between the frames. -- mcshadyplTC 03:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]