Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian military encampment, 1918

Australian military encampment, 1918

 * Reason:Most of the Australian light cavalry units of World War I served in the Middle Eastern theater. This photograph depicts an encampment in an important location: overlooking Jerusalem during the early months of the British Mandate of Palestine.  Restored version of File:Australian camps on slopes of Olivet & Mount Scopus.jpg.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Military history of Australia during World War I
 * Creator:American Colony Jerusalem

--jjron (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator -- Durova  403 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Good image well worked -- Herby talk thyme 09:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There seem to be some strange artifacts along the horizon which aren't in the original LoC version. The most visible ones are above and slightly to the right of the point where the road turns the corner.  Time3000 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support High EV, good image, nice restoration. Elekhh (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I agree with some of the arguments below regarding limitations of EV. Elekhh (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose EV is questionable; this photo boils down to a bunch of horses, tents, and a few people and carriages. The meat of the image (i.e. what was just previously mentioned) probably takes up ... 10% of the pixels, being generous? There is no context to place this near Jerusalem or even in Israel; as far as viewing it goes, this could be any desert. A saving grace could be a good display of the uniforms, arms, etc of the soldiers or the soldiers in formation, among other things, but I only count less than 20 visible bodies in the foreground. They don't seem to be dressed as soldiers. Basically the detail, and especially the context, is severely lacking. Might as well be a big group of nomads. What does it really add to the article?  upstate NYer  23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing the Bedouin weren't known for living in pup tents... ;) Durova  403 04:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but that pushes my point further: based on the image this could be any desert. The Gobi, Sahara, Death Valley, etc. In no way do you know that the Bedouin have ever stepped foot here.  upstate NYer  06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many historic pictures have little to positively identify themselves as genuine on the spot. The provenance of such material is what makes that you accept that the material is authentic. It is exactly for this reason why material from GLAMs are vitally important; we post their original, we refer back to their online original and we make damned sure that you can verify its authenticity. GerardM (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But I don't vote based on my feelings of GLAM works. That is not part of the criteria. I am here to vote on the criteria. I understand you feel strongly about passing many old works as 'proof' to GLAMs that they should release their work but I'm fundamentally opposed to operating like that; in essence you are voting support for all the wrong reasons. The goal is to promote the best, most representative works of a given situation. This, clearly, is not that.  upstate NYer  22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable and the historic importance is far-reaching. They were guarding Jerusalem during the beginning of the British Mandate of Palestine.  Do you assert that history would be no different if the Ottoman Turks had retaken that city? ;)  Durova  403 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in any way questioning the sources; it's the context of content of the image that I don't see adding much, if anything, to the article. No detail on the soldiers, the housing, the horses, etc. and to repeat myself, the meat of the image makes up less than 10% of the pixels in the image. Good image in itself, but not one of WP's best work overall.  upstate NYer  21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasonable people sometimes disagree. :) Durova  403 21:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support EV is high IMO. At performance of household jobs in camp soldiers are always similar to peasants. The official uniform isn't observed. I well know it as the former soldier of the Soviet army -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose We need more (some?!) FPs covering Australian military history, but I don't think that this meets the criteria for pretty much the reasons raised by upstateNYer - the EV of this photo isn't particularly high. The Australian War Memorial has lots of much better photos of the light horse in its huge collections - it's a real shame that the versions they place on their online database are much too small to be eligable for FP status (though in fairness they've recently done Wikipedia a huge service by accurately labeling their pre-1955 photos as 'copyright expired' and the huge number of photos is a fantastic asset for editors interested in Australian military history). Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support historic material from a well respected source, beautifully restored. High encyclopaedic value GerardM (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In line with your comment above, what exactly about this image makes it deserve a day on the Main Page? What do you learn from the image itself? If you must depend on the caption to know even a bit of context, then that picture isn't really worth the 1000 words referenced in the criteria. Is your support really based only on "good restoration" and "historic material"? Because that's not what the criteria specifies. Nothing in the image tells you even on what continent it take place, what century it is in, or even that there is a war going on. All three are essential to understanding the context, yet none of them are made apparent in the image. You even have one of WP's most prolific editors regarding Australian military history agreeing with me here. I'm no expert and am opposing just based on a novice's view (I can't learn anything from this image, even in the article), while User:Nick-D is opposing as a relative expert for the same reasons, including pointing out that there are a lot better images out there to work from.  upstate NYer  22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But nothing from the other collection is available at sufficient quality. My comments to his user talk about that might be worth a read.  Durova  403 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but that doesn't change the lack of context and, in all honesty, content, in this image. Those images are incidental; voting is based on this image only.  upstate NYer  22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GerardM is the key person who negotiated the partnered WMF Netherlands-Tropenmuseum exhibit, which received national news in the Netherlands and a head of state visit from the president of Suriname. In the context of potential leverage to open the doors of more museums, there's no Wikimedian with more successful experience.  Durova  403 02:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly the argument we shouldn't see in nominations. See my post above dated 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (nope, up one more, above your reference to the Ottomans). GLAM work is not a reason for supporting an image; GLAM is nowhere in the criteria and the criteria are what dictate voting rationale at FPC. For all the discussions and accusations about 'double standards' and 'moving the goalposts' in the past, this is exhibit A, in that you're creating a 'standard' out of thin air that has nothing to do with the criteria and the process agreed to by consensus at FPC, and are thereby 'moving the goalposts' to make it 'easier' to support, when in fact, the image offers little encyclopedic content and almost no context. "For the greater good of GLAM" is not - and most definitely won't be - in the criteria. If you have to settle for an argument based solely on "opening doors", then it seems you're admitting how much this image lacks overall.  upstate NYer  03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This image shows what an encampment looks like in those days, the distribution of horses and tents, the proximity of roads. It is also has the provenance of being a camp in a certain place. This image is worthwhile in its own right. When you look at many modern vistas that are proposed you will only find a panorama without anything interesting in it but a snapshot. GerardM (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, nothing in the image is actually informative; you learn nothing of the army outfits, the formation of the soldiers in battle, or even the location or century. Later vistas that you refer are typically promoted for outright beauty; this image offers no beauty so your comparison is as apples to oranges as it gets. Big deal, it shows an encampment, something that changed very little between the 1700s and early 1900s and is just an amalgamation of randomly set tents and parked horses. What on earth do you learn from that? Roughly speaking? Nothing.  upstate NYer  22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a bit dark for my liking, but well, we can not manipulate original images if the uploader is the photographer. I think the image has "good educational values" --Caspian blue 05:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Bit dark and blurry, but high EV.  -  F ASTILY ' (T ALK ) 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As UpstateNYer.  Mae din \talk 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)