Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Afghan National Police Officers

Afghan National Police Officers
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016  at 11:30:31 (UTC)
 * Reason:striking image of the woman's facial expression, detail of uniform and medals, and the other figure and Arabic writing in the background. Meets res criteria
 * Articles in which this image appears:Afghan National Police, Women's rights in Afghanistan
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Staff Sgt. Larry E. Reid Jr.


 * Support as nominator – MurielMary (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Left crop is too tight. --PetarM (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Shallow DOF. Sca (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sca. For the laypeople here, could you please give a definition of DOF so we know what the issue is? Cheers. MurielMary (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Depth of field. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Köszönöm, Armbrust. – Sca (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. DOF and cropping seem to me to be personal preference/taste (rather than definite deal-breakers like poor resolution). Would that be fair to say? I actually like the left crop and the DOF as they both contribute to an image which seems very "close" and immediate and, IMO, well composed. MurielMary (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – EV. The tight crop and DOF don't bother me so much, I like the composition and good lighting. Bammesk (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support  lNeverCry   13:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A substandard image, violating criteria 1, 2 and 3. It begs poses the question, who's that other person? (and what's that writing in the background?). In terms of visual information, a crop showing only the person in focus would be better. However, we apparently don't have an ID for her, making this a closeup of an anonymous person. If that person were doing something illustrative, it might be all right, but she's just standing there, and half her face is shadowed. Sca (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than "just standing there" she is standing at attention during a pass and review formation (I will add this information to the caption). MurielMary (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sca, it shows a working woman in a country that was struggling with women's education 15 years ago. It has good EV in articles that address women in Afghanistan. I don't find the shortcomings substantial enough to override the EV. Bammesk (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, she's just standing there at attention. Sca (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That the subject is a working woman has no bearing on the quality of the image. Sca (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true, it's about the EV. Bammesk (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support For me is fine...-- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I share Sca's concerns (though, a pet peeve, it doesn't beg that question) and there really is a whiff of American propaganda about this. Sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I plead guilty to being corrupted by TV news presenters misusing that phrase. I'd forgotten the original meaning. Thanks. (However, I don't get the bit about Am. propaganda.) Sca (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – Jobas (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- Ace fitt 08:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Crop on the left bothers me, why crop just inside her jacket like that? Mattximus (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an OK photo, but as noted above not a great one technically. More significantly, the EV seems weak as it doesn't really illustrate what the two women are doing, or why they are standing at attention at separate angles (which is unusual unless they're standing around something, which is presumably the case). Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would guess they were posed at different angles to show front and side views of the uniform. However, as noted, the side view is badly out of focus. Sca (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sca, this isn't a posed image, it doesn't look like one either, there are bits of a 3rd person behind her, we also have this image, there is no sign these were posed. And what is with the "she has to be doing something"? The image isn't being used to demonstrate a function, an act, craft, skill, sport or such. Are these people doing anything , ? Bammesk (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, and they weren't good choices for FPs, IMO – especially the astronauts; there's no worse cliché than a posed group. Regarding the nom., only the photog could definitively state that it's not posed. That said, I wouldn't oppose a simple photo of the one subject in focus if it were cropped well, there were no "bits" behind the subject, and we had an ID. Sca (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A photographer that uses high end gear and flies to assignments certainly wouldn't pose images with bits hanging behind his/her main subject. About you not opposing a simple photo etc. etc.: the image has technical shortcomings and its composition is a subjective thing, so there is no wrong vote. But when you call an image "substandard", please don't follow it with us having to read stuff on walls and her having to do stuff. Those aren't part of the standards. (valued opinions: yes, standards: no) Bammesk (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To beat a moribund horse: In this instance I think "posed" is a matter of semantics. It can be argued either way. To my mind, when people stand stock still in front of a camera, they are effectively posing. And this shot is objectively substandard technically. Anyhow, at this pt. looks like an even tie. Sca (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry, but per Mile, the crop on the left is not good. A pity. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 14:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)