Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cricketer bowled.jpg

Cricketer bowled
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 15:57:28 (UTC)
 * Reason:A picture showing a cricketer who has just been bowled, good EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bowled, Dismissal (cricket)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
 * Creator:Lemonlolly


 * Support as nominator -- Harrias  talk 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think this is too bad, but I would have preferred to have had the bowler included too so we know where the ball comes from and how. I'll reserve judgement for now. Matthewedwards : Chat  04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opppose per above. If I didn't watch cricket (yes, I'm weird, I'm an American who watches cricket), I would have no clue what was happening. Needs the bowler in picture. Clegs (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's the best picture of a cricketer I've seen so far, but I still don't get what being "bowled" is (since I don't know much about cricket). I can't tell what's happening in the photo. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – I can appreciate that without a baseline knowledge of cricket, this isn't as valuable as I thought. As a cricket fan (and someone playing in this match) I obviously knew what was happening, and it didn't even cross my mind it wasn't as obvious to other people. Does it have any value merely as a dismissal? I'm guessing not, but worth checking!  Harrias  talk 21:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments I'm not too familiar with your guidelines and criteria, but I'll point out that this photo could usefully illustrate a number of articles about cricket kit, including Whites (cricket), Batting gloves, Batting helmet and Stumps. It also shows the difference between the pitch (the light coloured short-mown grass he's standing on) and the outfield, which people can find difficult to distinguish from text and presumably have articles I'm too lazy to look for. The very dark strip is probably a practice strip, possibly with an artificial surface. We probably have an article on batting stance or technique, but I wouldn't use this image, except perhaps as an example of how not to bat. Incidentally, the photo is an excellent cricket picture - because the bowler isn't in it. By which I mean that because the chap 22 yards away can't be seen, there's some great detail visible, including the batsman's despairing look, the ball sharply in focus and even both of the bails (one on top of the left hand stump, the other is in the top left hand corner, flying dramatically out of shot). --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment (basically support) This discussion is going in the favour that there should have been a bowler in shot. However, I agree with Dweller fully, a bowler in shot, which could have meant 22 yards in picture, could have lessened the EV. The focus is as what the nominator says, it displays the every detail of a batsman being bold, the stumps is in focus, the batsman and the equipments. extra 999  ( talk )  14:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No wow factor, not particularly revealing to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

--Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)