Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The multilated body of Sergeant Frederick Wyllyams

The mutilated body of Sergeant Frederick Wyllyams

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 07:58:29 (UTC)

Reason: A Hi-Resolution image of the aftermath of the Battle of Little Bighorn (also known as "Custer's Last Stand"). The poor Sargent was a victim of battle, although I should think that the mutilation of the body occurred ex post facto given the apparent absence of blood from the cadaver, which seems to confirm the information in the article we have on the Battle of Little Bighorn: "By the time troops came to recover the bodies, they found most of the dead stripped of their clothing, ritually mutilated, and in an advanced state of decomposition, making identification of many impossible." Sergeant Frederick Wyllyams was a part of the fabled U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment, which was a military unit most famously associated with its role in the Indian Wars. This image is informative, and shows the lengths that both sides went to in order to win: for their part, the Americans were at the time concerned with manifest destiny and the white man's burden, while the Native American tribes were fighting desperately to prevent the invading US forces from capturing their tribal land and marshaling the surviving members of the tribe onto reservations in what is today the Midwest and south/southwestern United States.
Articles in which this image appears: 7th Cavalry Regiment, Cadaver, William Abraham Bell, Battle of the Little Bighorn
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War
Creator: Due to some ambiguity with the archives credit is given to both John Hannavy and William Abraham Bell, although our photo captions seems to favor the latter over the former.

Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 07:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I fail to see how this grisly image adds significant EV to the 7th Cavalry Regiment target article, the text of which does not mention either the "skirmish" or Mr. Wyllyams; nor is it of a high technical standard. Sca (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it does, but its a drive-by mention. It could be added the Battle of Little Bighorn article to address the apparent lack of EV (which I will do after I save this), but on the technical standard front I am at a loss for explanation - the image does look a little beat up on closer inspection. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ^{It mentions the Battle of Little Bighorn – is that what you mean? Sca (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)}[reply]
  - You're supposed to give it close inspection prior to nominating. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Sca: yes, that is what I meant. I want to note here too that while I did add the image to the battle of little bighorn article the edit was reverted by @I am One of Many:, so it appears that the image is just going to have to drift among the already mentioned articles. Sorry about that. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would probably support it if it was restored and the article referred to the event in more detail. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How did they get the clothes off without removing the arrows? Not a dilemma that frequently taxes me I should hasten to add, just curious. As for the pic I know there's something in the guidance about images not necessarily being pleasing. I seriously thought about supporting, but on balance stay neutral. Ayesha23 (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With the same knives they used to cut the body? Once you slice the clothes into small pieces, I guess it would be as simple as sliding them up the arrow bodies. Or maybe they shot him with extra arrows once he was already dead, to increase the shock value. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]