Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Royal Swedish Guard

Royal Swedish Guard

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 09:31:39 (UTC)

Reason: Sharp photo, showing a woman guard, which isn't that common to this kind of duty.
Articles in which this image appears: Royal Guards (Sweden)
FP category for this image: People/Military
Creator: Cha già José

Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 09:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As 1) the crop is too tight 2) the side-on angle is uninteresting and 3) the only article this is in doesn't mention the gender split of the personnel assigned to this duty (is it actually unusual in the Swedish military? Australia's Federation Guard includes many women, and the main reason that this is unusual internationally is that ceremonial guard duties are typically undertaken by infantry units in which women are in most cases not permitted to serve). As a war nerd, this photo of a female Swedish palace guard has stronger EV as it more clearly depicts her, and she's - very unusually for guard roles - equipped with a radio which suggests that she's actually guarding the building and isn't there for ceremonial purposes only. The technical quality of that photo isn't great though, and the side-on angle is also dull. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't find any problem with the crop or angle. I personally prefer a half body portrait than a full body as referenced by Nick. J Kadavoor J e e 16:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be a tilt (visible in the buildings and windows). Should this be corrected? --125.25.138.201 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel the EV is greatly reduced by a side shot, it's illustrating the guard, so a front shot showing the full uniform would be A LOT better EV. The side shot is only marginal, and not ideal for illustrating this. — raeky t 06:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I largely agree with Raeky: the crop is awkward; you don't generally see crops at knee level; the convention is generally to put the bottom either from about shoulder height to a little below the waist (when you want to get in the bottom of a jacket or the like), or to show the full person. I don't really mind the side view, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Cat-five t c ---- 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]