Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Early-2010s infantry equipment of the British Army (photo set)

Early-2010s infantry equipment of the British Army (photo set)
Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016  at 20:54:33 (UTC)


 * Reason:Highly encyclopedic photos, especially with the information on the file pages.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Modern equipment of the British Army, Royal Highland Fusiliers, MultiCam
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
 * Creator:Sgt Rupert Frere RLC / Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)


 * Support as nominator – Pine✉ 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Jobas (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Would work better if images were of the same size. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll support if presentation is cleaned up. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support-- A typical Pine nomination ;-)..-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORD my strength 01:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Though you may want to tweak the presentation a bit. The differing heights are awkward, and the front and back views, presumably to stop him shooting at himself, are reversed. A vertical presentation would be more natural, most likely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Typical stock military PR. Minimal EV. Zero human interest. Sca (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support I agree with Chris' comments that it would be better if these images were a bit more alike, but they were well executed and have strong EV. I'm a bit mystified by Sca's comment: soldiers are required to wear standard uniforms and use standard sets of equipment equipment, and images clearly showing the full kit of a combat soldier have significant historic value. The Australian War Memorial, for instance, goes out of its way to ensure that it has photos and examples of full combat gear in its collection and these are predominantly displayed in a museum which is visited by hundreds of thousands of people per year. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We all know soldiers are required to wear uniforms. The point is, these are public-relations photos, not any sort of real-world event. Sca (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And you can identify every piece of kit worn by a British soldier in the 2010s without even looking at a photograph? Good on you! But for the rest of us, these posed shots show the uniform much better than a shot of a soldier (say) caught in a firefight.Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I find them boring. I don't think most readers are interested in every piece of kit worn by British soldiers in the 2010s. Nor do most of us expect to be required to identify them anytime soon. Sca (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I find several subjects presented in these fora to be boring, but nonetheless I am able to push my own biases aside to recognize the value of various contributions. Wikipedia and its processes are bigger than any one editor, and as such we are supposed to focus on content quality in featured processes, rather than some abstract ideal of 'not boring to me'. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I find many of the featured artworks boring. Shall we delist those? 86.185.218.109 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - But I agree with Adam and Chris. Spongie555 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Added images to Featured pictures/People/Military instead. --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)