Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Historical reenactment

Historical reenactment
Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 10:50:43 (UTC)
 * Reason:Exciting, powerful, demonstartion of Historical reenactment, with high EV and technical excellence.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Historical reenactment, Battle of Waterloo reenactment
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Myrabella


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I remember inserting the image in Battle of Waterloo reenactment, then I seem to have forgotten about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support JJ Harrison (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Great angle, excellent EV.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support good depiction Pine(talk) 09:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. This is a nice image as others have said, but I'd like some clarification. Given we're voting on EV for historical reenactments, what evidence is there to suggest that peasant women would have been standing so close to the line of fire in such a battle? Highly unlikely I would have thought. --jjron (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the image is used in the Historical reenactment article, rather than the original battle(s), then I suppose it only has to be representative of historical reenactments, rather than of actual battles. I have no idea, but there's no reason to suggest this is unrepresentative of reenactments. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But surely a good reenactment is representative of the actual battle ... --jjron (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to which, I have some additional concerns having now looked at the Commons FPC nom where it was suggested that the regiment represented by the reenactors didn't actually fight at Waterloo. --jjron (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that glaring historical inaccuracies are not unusual among military reenactors. A minority go to extraordinary lengths to get things right, but most aim for 'close enough' (see Historical reenactment. For instance, the average military reenactor (like the gents in the photo here) seems to be a healthy middle aged man, while most soldiers are in their teens or early 20s, and in pre-modern periods had high rates of disease. As such, this image is a perfectly good example of military reenactors, which is how it's being used. It's a poor depiction of what the Battle of Waterloo would have looked like, but it's not in that article. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is my feeling too - I think this is representative of Historical reenactments, since they are rarely totally accurate either. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good argument. I'm not sure I'm totally convinced mind you, but well argued nonetheless (and note that I wouldn't really expect them to be acted out strictly by young canon-fodder sporting 19th century lifestyle diseases or the like). I was inclining towards opposing, but that's staved it off for the time being at least. Hmm, given that though, I'm thinking maybe the image page and perhaps article caption should at least note the most obvious inaccuracies, even as a way of highlighting that these historical reenactments are often historically inaccurate, and to add to the EV of this particular image ... --jjron (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible. I doubt that the people in the photo are in fact 'solders' as the original uploader said: all of those who are visible are middle aged and, um, a bit on the chunky side. I'd change the caption to call them "reenactors" or similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support High quality and good EV. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Nicely done. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--Jujutacular (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)