Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The US Army - Loading up

The US Army - Loading up
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015  at 13:56:28 (UTC)
 * Reason:There is EV here, there is quality here, there is nice shot and frame her and there is everything for a FP here. Anything more?
 * Articles in which this image appears:Combined operations, 82nd Airborne Division, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/People/Military
 * Creator:The US army


 * Support as nominator – - The Herald (here I am) 13:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Where's the EV? J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per JM. Yann (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and ..Its now lead pic in Combined operations.. - The Herald (here I am) 04:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - This is part of history. The photo is unusually clear, the composition is good. CorinneSD (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Corinne. Historical EV for Iraq War & long U.S. involvement. Sca (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the case right now. Why this image? Why in these articles? 24.222.214.125 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it's not the case right now? That it isn't part of history yet? I'm undecided about how well it illustrates the articles, but as a standalone photo, it's undeniably historically valuable as documenting an event / location / point in time, no matter how recently it was taken. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean as it's used right now it lacks that EV. There's nothing that shows why this place, exercise, unit etc. have the kind of EV that we look for usually; nor is there a broad non-specific EV that this image fulfills (e.g. as an example of combined ooperations). 24.222.214.125 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per JM. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ..What more EV can you ask for a lead image. It rightly depicts one of yhe Combined operations by US and Iraq.  - The Herald (here I am) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't solely judge EV by where an image is placed in an article. There are plenty of reasons we may be unconvinced that this is a particularly stellar illustration of the concept of a combined operation. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with those above, nice picture but I can't quite see the EV. Is it to illustrate combined operations? If that is the goal there is surely a better picture then the backs of two slightly different coloured uniforms. Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mattximus - nice enough picture though, even if not an FP level one... gaz hiley  10:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support EV, focused on historic topic. __ Alborzagros (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - To be of encyclopedic value, the photo does not have to illustrate combined operations. It could illustrate "a static loading exercise" during an important period in U.S. and Iraqi history. CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It could, if we had an article on static loading exercise. However, we don't. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Military exercise may play role.. - The Herald (here I am) 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

-- - The Herald (here I am) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nom withdrawn by (as) nominator - The Herald (here I am) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)