Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bougainville Campaign underground surgery

Bougainville Campaign underground surgery

Original - In an underground surgery room, behind the front lines on Bougainville, an American Army doctor operates on a US soldier wounded by a Japanese sniper. December 13, 1943.

Reason: Meets the criteria and is historical as well as dramatic.
Articles this image appears in: Bougainville Campaign, World War II casualties
Creator: "Miller", US Army, US National Archives File # 111-SC-187247WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 918

Support as nominator --Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fits the criteria, and a very nice picture too. Thelb ⁴ 08:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, wartime surgery...the medics aren't even wearing clothes...smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lighting is horrible, and the subject is barely visible. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are several subjects in the image, including the dugout bunker itself as well as the surgeon and the patient. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Weak Oppose ~~Illustrates nothing about the article it's in, and any encyclopedic value about combat surgery at the time is~~ limited by the lighting. Thegreenj 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its value to that article is to show the difficult conditions that the combatants were living under, including performing life-saving surgery in basically a hole in the ground by surgeons operating shirtless, I assume because of the heat or difficulties with keeping clothing sanitized. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is that something unique to the Bougainville Campaign, or just an overall result of the combination of technology and resources anywhere in the fringes of WWII? This doesn't help me understand the Bougainville Campaign any better, but it is encyclopedic for World War II casualties, so I've changed to weak oppose. I can't support a photo whose subject is blown. Thegreenj 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, make that oppose unless the image is actually in World War II casualties, as it has been removed by User:Woogie10w without an edit summary... Thegreenj 14:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the image to World War II casualties where it replaces an image that had uncertain copyright status (due to a change in Russian law). It would be better in an article about wartime medicine, if that could be found. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blown highlight where it matters the most. --Janke | Talk 06:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I'm evidently too stupid to realise that primitive surgeries generally go hand-in-hand with professional photography. I mean, really, who wouldn't expect that? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm Shows the conditions of wartime surgery, so definitely encyclopaedic. On the other hand, I'm wondering if it should be cropped. The bags of sand offer a better idea of what the trenches look like, but they give little information relative to the space consumed. So I'll be sitting on a barbless fence for a while. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, there are a whole bunch of articles where this could potentially fit: Medical Corps (United States Army), Military medicine, Field hospital, Combat medic, etc. I like the first two best as potential fits. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]