Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian army soldier after siege of Kut q79446

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Emaciated British (Indian) army soldier in WW 1 (POW)[edit]

An emaciated British (Indian) army soldier who survived the siege of Kut (December 1915-April 1916) in WW1 .
This photograph shows an emaciated British (Indian) army soldier who survived the siege of Kut (December 1915-April 1916) in WW1 . It was probably taken in July 1916, after he and other British POWs had been released from Turkish captivity in Baghdad during a prisoner exchange. The soldier's skeletal frame indicates not only the appalling conditions inside Kut during the siege, but also the harsh treatment meted out to 'other ranks' while in enemy hands afterwards. About 8 million men surrendered and were held in POW camps during the WW 1. All nations pledged to follow the Hague Convention on fair treatment of prisoners of war.

As opposed to WW2, very few images of WW1 POW abuse exits probably due to the lack of photography equipment. This is one of the rare images

Articles this image appears in
Siege of Kut , British Indian Army ,, World War I.
Unknown photographer probaly from british gov
  • Support as nominatorPreetikapoor0 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this isn't eligible because it is a fair use image; featured pictures have to be free images. Enuja 01:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC) I was just going by the image page, but since the copyright has, indeed, expired, then it is, indeed eligible. Sorry. Enuja 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hasn't the copyright expired (1916 + 50 years)? J Are you green? 01:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This is a free image as copyright has expired. For photographs taken before 1 June 1957 Crown copyright protection expires 50 years after creation [1], [2].Preetikapoor0 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (Reluctant) Oppose - it's an amazing image, very enc. However, there simply has to be a higher res version out there. This one is too small and has JPG artifacts. If someone found a better version, I would support it instantly. Zakolantern 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Though it does not fulfill size requirements, I believe that this is exceptionally encyclopedic and rare. The quality is not so low as to diminish the educational value of this photo. Remember, when considering the size rule: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." Jellocube27 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose only due to scan resolution. It would be great if a better scan could be obtained. Spikebrennan 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose resolution. --Mad Max 23:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, unique image with significant historic value. Per above a better scan would be great though. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 01:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, while the pixel count is low it is perfectly sufficient for the picture's message to be put across. Compression artifacts exist but are not immediately visible, or visible at all to most people. Very strong and powerful image. Central2 12:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, due to size, but instant support for higher-res scan of original. tiZom(2¢) 19:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on size, would support a better version with everyone else. The size exemption for historic images is there so as not to disqualify images that don't (and will never) exist in better versions; where we do know there is better quality available, we should hold out for it. ~ VeledanTalk 22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on size, support very much for a better version. Point about lack of WWI photography of this subject matter well taken. --Dhartung | Talk 12:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)