Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Storming a bunker, World War I

Storming a bunker, World War I

Reason: The best digitized action shot I've yet located of World War I. Restored version of File:At close grips.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Western Front (World War I), ~~Trench warfare~~, World War I, United States campaigns in World War I
Creator: H.D. Gridwood

Support as nominator --Durova³⁸³ 05:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is to storm a bunker? franklin 13:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to definition 3 here. In simple terms here, the US army are making a quick attack on the German bunker. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't help feeling worried about these images that get nominated claiming being in articles (and therefore claiming EV, which I'm not doubting in this case) in which it has been added just moments before the nomination. For example, this particular image has already been removed (not by me) from one of them. I read the criteria and there is nothing (I think) preventing nominators from doing this but, isn't that dangerous? franklin 14:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been discussed before, and probably belongs on FPC Talk. There's differing opinions on it - will elaborate more if you wish to take it to the talkpage. (FWIW I agree with its removal from Trench warfare, certainly didn't belong as the lead image - perhaps could be judiciously placed elsewhere, though the use of bunkers doesn't seem to even rate a mention). --jjron (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Already did but forgot to place a link to the talk page. franklin 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removal was done with the edit summary Undid revision 332437549 by Durova (talk) rv (does everything have to lead with a U.S. pic?[1] Actually none of the ten featured pictures of still photography from World War I depict US subjects: five are Ottoman, two Belgian, one German, one English, and one Australian. The editor who made that revert did not discuss it either with me or at article talk. I could probably find another high resolution image of two British soldiers in a trench, but Americans aren't overrepresented at this subject. Durova³⁸³ 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't care whether or not it's got Americans, I just don't find it a great representation of trench warfare - the article has several better images for this subject. As I said above, couldn't even find a mention of bunkers in the article. --jjron (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous comment and therefore United States campaigns in World War I. franklin 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is there any documentation to show that this is indeed an action shot? Anyone familiar with First World War photography field equipment would know that this shot would have been incredibly difficult to do during a battle, especially outside the protection of a trench. No information of which battle, formation or unit involved. The un-restored original certainly appears to be a stereoview, which means two cameras would have been employed to make the unrestored image? I find such a photographic achievement hard to believe. Why has the image been split given its a stereoview, that appears to contradict criteria 8? My primary concern is that the image is staged, a common propaganda practice during the First World War (Ex: Image:Going_over_the_top_01.jpg. The lack of back story on the image or any info on the author make validation extremely difficult. Oppose on grounds of criteria 6.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for the claim that this is propaganda? Stereoscopic photography was done on a single tripod the same as single plate photography and is not in itself an indicator of artificiality: this example was an actual execution taken more than fifty years before. Other FPs that have been restored and promoted from a single side of stereograms include File:Wawona tree1.jpg and File:Doubledayo.jpg. Criterion 8 does not apply. Durova³⁸⁶ 06:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gridwood distributed this stereographs under the company RealisticTravels. Realistic Travels is known to have staged scenes [2][3]. I also found the same image as your file [4] but with a different caption: "Unexpectedly our 'cleaners up' come to grips with a party of Germans isolated in a captured village". Neither has any unit or battle information and without that validating the "battle image" claim is not possible. Can you provide any details that would demonstrate that this is in fact a battle image?--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gridwood seems to be a typo in the LOC catalog for cinematographer Dr. H.D. Girdwood here is an NYT article mentioning a movie he produced, and here is another of his stereographs, on which the latter spelling is clearly shown.LeadSongDog come howl 19:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a discussion of Hilton DeWitt Girdwood's images (in German) here (see pp.139-140). The rolls of the Royal Geographical Society listed him under "Fellows" as "1915 Girdwood, H. D., Esq., O.B.E., LL.D. 4, Featherstone-buildings, High Holborn, W.C.I." here. The Imperial War Museum site comments here that many of his scenes were staged. LeadSongDog come howl 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Another discussion by Alastair H. Fraser says "Hilton de Witt Girdwood appears to have faked combat footage in his film With the Empire’s Fighters, which was shot in 1915" at this Western Front Association Stand To article. LeadSongDog come howl 20:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC) journalists have through the ages taken risks that got them killed. Doubt that war photographers did not take risk flies in the face of history.[reply]
Weak oppose. Sorry, but I'm with Labattblueboy- this looks like it's staged. It is a very dramatic shot, and it does evoke emotion, but, even if it was posed, it's not really showing anything that needs to be shown. I'm not convinced that it adds much to the articles in which it is used. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it hard to believe that this photo isn't staged - it would have been almost impossible to bring a World War I era camera that close to the front line. The Australian military had a small team of suicidally brave official photographers who took extreme risks to take action shots, and they were only able to take photos from fixed positions in trenches or shell holes - as a result the soldiers they depict are typically tiny figures advancing across fields. For this photo to have been genuine the photographer would have had to set their camera up in the direct line of sight of a German bunker while operating ahead of the forward infantry. That simply isn't credible without a reliable source stating that they did it (a medal citation would seem appropriate!). Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed to see that this picture is failing due to "original research" by the voters. It could just as easily be American soldiers advancing under cover of a smokescreen into a empty German position which was previously reduced by mortars or shell. I notice, though, that the description on the LOC page is wrong again: "Three American soldiers viewed from behind, near ruins, World War I." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as location and battle are unclear, and there is a strong possibility of the image being staged. However, If there is information otherwise, then this would be a great FP. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]