Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The US Army - Loading up

The US Army - Loading up

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015 at 13:56:28 (UTC)

Reason: There is EV here, there is quality here, there is nice shot and frame her and there is everything for a FP here. Anything more?
Articles in which this image appears: Combined operations, 82nd Airborne Division, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Military
Creator: The US army

Support as nominator – - The Herald (here I am) 13:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Where's the EV? J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per JM. Yann (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: and @Yann:..Its now lead pic in Combined operations.. - The Herald (here I am) 04:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is part of history. The photo is unusually clear, the composition is good. CorinneSD (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Corinne. Historical EV for Iraq War & long U.S. involvement. Sca (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the case right now. Why this image? Why in these articles? 24.222.214.125 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean it's not the case right now? That it isn't part of history yet? I'm undecided about how well it illustrates the articles, but as a standalone photo, it's undeniably historically valuable as documenting an event / location / point in time, no matter how recently it was taken. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean as it's used right now it lacks that EV. There's nothing that shows why this place, exercise, unit etc. have the kind of EV that we look for usually; nor is there a broad non-specific EV that this image fulfills (e.g. as an example of combined ooperations). 24.222.214.125 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per JM. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alchemist-hp:..What more EV can you ask for a lead image. It rightly depicts one of yhe Combined operations by US and Iraq. - The Herald (here I am) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't solely judge EV by where an image is placed in an article. There are plenty of reasons we may be unconvinced that this is a particularly stellar illustration of the concept of a combined operation. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with those above, nice picture but I can't quite see the EV. Is it to illustrate combined operations? If that is the goal there is surely a better picture then the backs of two slightly different coloured uniforms. Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mattximus - nice enough picture though, even if not an FP level one... gazhiley 10:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support EV, focused on historic topic. __ Alborzagros (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be of encyclopedic value, the photo does not have to illustrate combined operations. It could illustrate "a static loading exercise" during an important period in U.S. and Iraqi history. CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It could, if we had an article on static loading exercise. However, we don't. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military exercise may play role.. - The Herald (here I am) 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- - The Herald (here I am) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn by (as) nominator - The Herald (here I am) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]