Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leosvel et Diosmani - 4.jpg

Chinese pole[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 11:55:49 (UTC)

Reason: Including High Quality image lable, Featured picture in commons, Technical framing, suitable background.
Articles in which this image appears: Chinese pole
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator: Ludo29

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While this photo has good technical quality, it would have more EV if we could see the top and bottom of the pole to give more context. Pine^✉ 04:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To focus two cubans art acrobatic performance, we need to get the camera closer. end and top of Chinese pole is not enough important. If User:Pine'S subjugation was significant the picture would be out of artists conduct. Alborzagros (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by Pine's subjugation? And what is artists conduct? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bash anyone's English when a little thinking should make it obvious. :) He means if Pine's opinion were implemented the image would be less focused on the artists and what they are doing. More pole (which can be up to nine metres high) equals fewer pixels on the actual subject. Julia\^talk 19:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia, I'm the last person that would bash someone for how they speak a foreign language. ~~Way to assume bad faith.~~ Having learned several languages myself, I have often wished someone asked me for clarification on a statement of mine instead of guessing what I meant, as oftentimes they will guess incorrectly. Simply treating others as I wish to be treated.

If your interpretation of his comment is correct, then I have to agree that there will be less pixels to admire their huge muscles, but there will be better context as to how high up the ground these guys are performing. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the :)? I wasn't assuming bad faith, I just think if you wanted clarification it could have been done relatively privately on his talk page instead of bringing it to everyone's attention here, which seemed to give it unnecessary weight and negativity. Julia\^talk 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had interpreted the smiley to be referring to the obvious. Oh well. Not that it is easy to convey emotion over text. I considered asking in his talk page, but then again, someone else here might have wanted the answers to the same questions and would have benefited from reading them. In any case, it was not my intention to give it negativity. As I said earlier, I wanted a clarification, and I asked in what was, to me, a civil manner. My apologies for having assumed bad faith on your comments. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jkadavoor (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly noisy, but not bad considering the environment I'm sure this was taken in. Jujutacular (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose for now. EV is OK, the article is not super long. Composition is sub par. I agree with Pine, more context would really help. Image is noisy, as ~~Jkadavoor~~ Jujutacular points out. If it was only one of those flaws I would likely support. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Jkadavoor. Thank you for correcting that!--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As Jujutacular says, the likely environment makes this actually a decent capture and would be hard to improve. I don't see the need for more context necessarily, as the focus is the stunts that are performed on the pole, not how high the pole is. Julia\^talk 19:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Leosvel et Diosmani - 4.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]