Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/FieldSurgery

Field Surgery

 * Reason:A unique picture, showing the side of something you might not usually think about. Plus, I think it's a really striking photograph: the perspective, the lighting for example. Peer review here. This picture (unknown to me) went up for FPC a while earlier, but was rejected mainly for reason of lighting/blown highlights. This version comes from a different source (National Archives vs. Department of Defense) and for whatever reason has much better lighting. It's also, hwoever, a smaller image in resolution, 1,349x1,097 px versus 3,000x2,105 px.
 * Articles this image appears in:Battlefield medicine
 * Creator:US Army


 * Support as nominator --zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Peer Review --Noodle snacks (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could use some restoration. Mfield (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - The EV is pretty good, per the PPR. '''Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment IMHO the other version is better because it is higher resolution and more detailed (you can see the surgical instruments) the blown highlights are probably unavoidable because there appears to be strong lighting used in the surgery room but was made worse by the high contrast of the scan Thisglad (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - first off, this pic lacks vital detail in what should be the main focus of the article. we can't even see the scissors on the white sheet. In addition, it really doesn't have much EV in the article it's in: it doesn't add to any of the medical advances and is just stuck on at the end. In addition, the focus, the surgery, is too small and isn't really detailed; the only reason we know it is surgery is because of the sign and the guy in a face mask. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the fact that the article it's in is poor shouldn't really affect it's EV. Other articles it could go include field hospital for sure or perhaps military medicine, but the fact that those articles aren't detailed as well shouldn't count against the image. The lack of seeing the scissors, though, is a fair point. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 07:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)