Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Active duty American servicewomen and their weapons

Active duty American servicewomen and their weapons
Despite the joking title, this is a serious review request. Out of the 105 featured pictures at WikiProject Military history/Gallery, not a single one depicts an actual female on active duty (it's partly my fault; nearly 20 were my nominations). So let's do something about that. Due to copyright issues these are all American (would represent other countries if we get access to quality free license images). So here are three potential candidates; presenting them as a group. They're not exactly in competition with each other: please comment on any, all, or none.


 * 1) U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant Tanya Breed demonstrates a Barrett .50 caliber rifle during a special operations training course at Hurlburt Field, Florida.
 * 2) U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class Kelliea Guthrie and Senior Airman Greg Ellis guard a C-130 Hercules aircraft during cargo operations at Feyzabab Airfield, Afghanistan.  (Image needs denoising and spot removal, which would be done before FPC).
 * 3) Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the Kentucky Army National Guard is the first female in United States military history to be cited for valor in close quarters combat, for action near Salman Pak, Iraq on March 20, 2005.  Sgt. Hester's squad of 10 soldiers were guarding a supply convoy that got ambushed by a group of 50 Iraqi insurgents.  Hester executed a flanking maneuver, assaulted the enemy with grenades, and personally shot and killed 3 enemy combatants with her rifle.  Her unit killed 27 enemy, wounded 6, and captured 1.  She received the Silver Star in recognition.


 * Nominated by: Durova Charge! 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I really like the first two. I think the first in particular seems very likely to pass. Would it be possible to crop a little sky from the second without damaging the aspect ratio particularly? Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The longer I look at it, the more I also like the third, which has outstanding EV. I'd say it's worth a shot - what's there to lose? Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal Opinion: The second one is very likely to pass with a bit of tweaking. The picture can do with a little color adjustment. It seems a bit too yellow. Also a slight downsize might help with the sharpness and noise. The first is a VERY good picture but I'm guessing it was taken after the gun was fired. All the smoke really detracts from the picture a shot when or before the gun was fired is probably favorable. If a picture could show a sniper and a target far away I think it might make for an interesting composition. If you need an edit just call. victorrocha (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means give an edit a try if you're interested. It sounds like you have a particular vision and I'm curious to see how it develops.  Best,  Durova Charge! 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although please don't downsample. Downsampling never improves an image; at best it'll be the same, so it's really only appropriate when the original is an unmanageably large image that wouldn't lose any detail from doing so. This one looks pretty detailed at full-res, so I wouldn't. Thegreenj 03:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already tweaked the histogram. The suggestion about the color balance looks worth exploration and the cropping idea is intriguing.  The changes I had in mind when I put this up for review were to blend in spots with the healing brush, then selectively denoise parts of the sky.  What's curious is that nobody has commented on the third photograph, which is the most encyclopedic and has some pleasingly subtle compositional elements.  Note the groupings of the male soldiers behind Sgt. Hester, whose faces form approximate diagonals from the upper corners that converge toward her face.  Durova Charge! 03:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To me No2 has the biggest impact image-wise, though I find its EV a bit marginal. No1 actually gets better the bigger you look at it, the thumbnail isn't much, and I'm not entirely sold on composition, but could be worth a try. No3 to me just looks like a snapshot. --jjron (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the first picture best; the second is pretty good as well, although I do think that cropping out a little of the sky (as suggested above) would be a good idea. The third image is not bad, as well, although I do think the other two are better. Anthøny  15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of seeming a jerk, I don't think that any of these images is close to FP standard. The first is indistinct and looks like a snapshot, the second is OK but looks staged but the gender of the people in the photo is unclear. The third photo is my favourite and the one with by far the most encyclopedic value, but it lacks a 'wow' factor. Image:C-130 - First all female crew.jpg seems to have potential though and might be a good FP prospect. and I'm biased in favour of Image:PTE Shaylee Gomes and her truck.jpg (which I uploaded and is a bit snap-shooty, but is a great photo of a woman who looks very comfortable in her job). Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While the third lacks a wow factor for the image itself as Nick Dowling points out, it's encyclopedia value is so high compared to the other two, that it's as if we're being asked to compare Hank Aaron's home run record and my five-year-old son's first at bat in t-ball. I would love to see an image of Leigh Ann Hester on the main page as a featured picture, even if it were this one.  Is the title really necessary, "chicks with guns?"  I am so lamely tired of the gender bias on Wikipedia, then being spit upon as being too sensitive when I complain about it.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If any of these go to FPC (and one or more probably will), I assure you that nomination will have a serious title. No offense intended, and if this one seriously bothers you consider yourself welcome to move the page to a title you prefer.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 06:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. 1 I already commented about on FPC and indeed I think it's the weakest. No. 2 is the most photographically interesting composition, although I agree with Nick, not so much that it looks staged, but more that the photographer tried to make it more dramatic by kneeling or standing on lower ground.  As far as illustrating women in the military, unfortunately the C-130 and the stark, beautiful landscape of Afghanistan seem to overpower the image, making the soldiers look relatively anonymous to me.  No 3. stands in interesting contrast to No. 2, because whereas No. 2 offers a dramatic composition, No 3. is fairly plain, just a soldier standing with other soldiers.  But coupled with a good caption, No. 3 is extremely encyclopedic, showing the first woman to win the Silver Star in combat.  Fletcher (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When I uploaded no. 2 I wondered whether it would be a better FPC candidate on Commons where esthetic composition weighs more heavily than encyclopedic value. Some images have the former at the expense of the latter and this may be one.  The androgyny is appealing in its way: on some level it doesn't matter whether a servicemember is female or male as long as the job is getting done.  With the third image, I keep thinking of Doris Miller: a genuine war hero and a historic first.  The only thing left to confirm is that the shot was taken on the day she received her medal.  Durova Charge! 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Added nice image of female B-17 pilots in training to ferry bombers. Looks good and meets size requirements, but when viewed full size, you see lines forming a grid pattern throughout the image... I wonder if there is a photoshop filter that could clean it up?  Fletcher (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What a pity that someone had to ruin the image like that. The grid pattern is a result of poor jpeg compression followed by heavy oversharpening. If nothing else, it should serve as a reminder always to save in a compressed format as the last stage of editing, and never to try to compensate for lack of detail with heavy unsharp masking. Thegreenj 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the kind of poor archival practice I deliberately avoid. If you can get a better source file, by all means send it my way. :)  Durova Charge! 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang. It looks like that on the Air Force site, too, so it's not as though a Wikipedian messed  it up.  Fletcher (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some quick googling, but I didn't turn up any higher quality versions. Thegreenj 03:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That happens a lot. Thanks very much for searching. :)  Durova Charge! 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconder:

