Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roman Legionaries

Roman Legionaries

My wife took this photo so yes, it's a self-nom, but I think it's pretty darn good. It's both pleasing to the eye and educational, as it's a group of re-enactors in accurate period garb.

Nominate and support. - Caliga10 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the image. I wonder if you have another where we can see the full outfit.Nnfolz 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have many more I can upload, yes.--Caliga10 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Nice image, but there are significant problems... The foremost being that the crest on the soldier's shield is an image "cut off" (see FPC). Another being that the image does not show the entirety of the main subject, the soldier. Also, soldier on the far right (partial view) is also a textbook case of image cut off, and the steel-topped building to the far left is also in the frame... Again, very nice image and Im betting the reenactment has an enormous historical background, but not suitable for FP status. Thanks. AJ24 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good colors, focus. Unfortunate that a single entire soldier is not shown but partial soldiers at edges are to be expected to illustrate close order formation. Also there is no steel topped building in the photo. Rmhermen 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. sorry about that, soldier's armor looked like dome of building, it looks more like a white tent really. AJ24 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's the edge of another legionary. In fact, I have another photo shot at a wider angle in which he is visible in his entirety.--Caliga10 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The image quality is excellent, its just the subject. If you had another photo showing more or a complete photo of the reenactment with the same quality, im sure it would make FP status. -- AJ24 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a pic of a entire soldier would be better Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Childzy. Would support version showing the whole soldier. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this photo:

This was taken at the same event but shows the entire rightmost legionary, in an (almost, sans legs) full body shot. Do people think this is a nicer photo? I preferred the one I originally posted, personally.--Caliga10 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I want to see as much of the soldier as possible, thus I prefer your first version. As I said, I would support one showing the whole soldier (including legs) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do in fact have a full body shot (omitting just the caligae (sandals)) of one of the reenactors. The problem with that shot is that there are cars, power lines, and the like visible in the background and thus I feel it detracts from the immersion, and wouldn't even consider it a great photo for that reason unless I or someone else take the time to airbrush it.--Caliga10 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedians would probably say that such intense editing is undesireable. It's annoyingly hard to get really good photos at festivales and parades because of the crowds :(. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see the FPC example of a subject "cut-off". -- AJ24 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Personally I don't find the cut off too bad. A little extreme perhaps, but helps centre the focuse of the object. --Fir0002 07:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would probably support a version with both the left and right "half-soldiers" cut out. ie, you would see three main soldiers, and the head of the fourth. -- Marumari 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't exactly seem illustrative of real legionaires. I know it's impossible to get an actual photo, but the fact that it's modern day lacks any genuine-ness of "real" roman history. Also don't like so much the fact that it's only a few individual soldiers, rather than a whole group in formation, and the photograph itself doesn't strike me as anything special. --128.32.185.154 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Vircabutar 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They aren't real Roman. – Morganfitzp 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]