Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/50th (INDEPENDENT) PARACHUTE BRIGADE (INDIA

50th (INDEPENDENT) PARACHUTE BRIGADE (INDIA).JPG
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 05:40:54 (UTC)


 * Reason:The Indian Army is the 2nd largest army in the world and one of the oldest also. The army has seen action in World War-I, World War-II,Anglo-Afgan Wars,Sino-Indian War,Indo Pak Wars,Kargil War and numerous other conflicts.

The "historical significance" the image carries clearly overweights the so called "quality". This image shows the symbol of "50th (INDEPENDENT) PARACHUTE BRIGADE (INDIA)" and below are three units of this brigade that participated in Kargil War. The units of brigade has seen action in World War-I, World War-II, Indo Pak Wars,Kargil War and numerous other conflicts. The units of this Brigade were the back bone of British Army and saw action in middle east from British side.

But i'm sorry to write that such a significant army is also one of the most "under-written" and "under-photographed" armies on wikimedia,wikipedia and other wiki projects.There is not a single image that is comparible to this one; not just on wikipedia but on the whole internet also. This is not just a rare image but it is rarest of the rarest image of one of the bravest brigades in the world.

Though this image is not of too good quality, but it is not the quality alone that make a picture featured one......it is the "historical significance".

This image represent the strength of 1.1 BILLION INDIANS and thus must be a "featured picture"
 * Articles in which this image appears:50th Parachute Brigade (India),Kargil War,Parachute Regiment (India),Para Commandos (India)
 * FP category for this image:indian army
 * Creator:indian_poet


 * Support as nominator --Indian poet (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, it would be better to work on the article on the regiment, which this could go on the main page as part of the article for. One of the reasons why picture standards are so high is because it's found that, if such quality is insisted upon, we'll usually get it in the end, so it could well be counterproductive to promote this image, thereby not giving encouragement to acquiring a better one. Oppose, but I'd be willing to offer some help with the article. There are other alternatives; for instance US$40 would get a high-quality scan made of http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/oem2002006658/PP/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/oem2002007114/PP/ - perhaps more significant images for war service. More broadly, we might consider the freely-available http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3g07373/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8e00108/ - or if we're willing to pay for rescans, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b05641/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b16259/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b05643/ - all of which would be excellent. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002705692/ might be able to get a release after rights analysis. It might even be possible to get http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2005693711/ analysed, should we write a polite letter to the Library of Congress.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination as this photo is low quality and doesn't meet the featured picture criteria (as it's out of focus and the logos are at an angle). These logos may also be covered by copyright. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt they're covered by Copyright: India has fairly short copyright terms, in particular, 60 for governmental works (which includes the military) so they'd have to have changed significantly since WWII. (Section 28A here). I presume they haven't, as that would make this image worthless for the intended purpose.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Parachute Regiment (India), two of the units whose badges are depicted (6 Para and 7 Para) were formed in the early 1960s, so their logos are potentially not PD (though, to complicate things, the badge may be generic across all the battalions of the Indian Parachute Regiment and so pre-date the formation of these units) The main issue here, however, is the poor quality of this image. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally, but it's worth considering the point, as, bad quality as the image is, it's still useful to at least some of the articles it's in. (Not convinced about Kargil War.). Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would be great if you could track down a better (higher resolution) image! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per comments above. The subject matter is perfectly worthy of a featured-picture-quality image, but this isn't it.  Here and here are examples of a FP-quality insignia.  Spikebrennan (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, the quality is way below what is expected here. SMasters (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)