Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pool Cue and Chalk

Pool Cue and Chalk

 * Reason:Well, I haven't submitted a nomination in more than a month, and I'm on my way to Switzerland in a week so I thought I'd put a few pictures up for FP. I've been busy lately and working for my school's newspaper had taking up all my photography motivation. Now that's over you'll see some photo journalism on my part: at least in the form of sports pictures. See, my advantage is that I get to keep the copyrights to the photos I take, even if they are for newspaper.
 * On to the photos: All are technically sound I think and are illustrative and perhaps artistic but let me say a few words about subject matter. Most of our FPs are as follows: Historical stuff, NASA stuff, Stitched pano landscapes/architecture, Bugs, Birds. Well, none of these images fall into any of those categories. So, while I am not so sure how well they will fare here, I am trying to branch out for myself and our FP collection with Images that are useful, artistic, and technically great. I'd like you to tell me how I did. ;-) -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles this image appears in:Cue sports, Cue stick
 * Creator:Fcb981


 * Support as nominator --Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. This picture has more aesthetic value than encyclopedic value. The cue stick is mostly cut off and out of focus. victorrocha (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps a bit picky, but aren't pool tables usually green cloth, not black? Also, the position of the hand isn't so much "applying the chalk" as "holding the chalk near a cue which has recently been chalked. Does the cuestick look like a lit (albeit burning blue) cigarette to anyone else with that cutoff? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the hand is not holding the chalk stationary. It really is finishing the motion of applying the chalk.  Check out the chalk dust flying off along the line of motion.  It is a nice shot with almost no motion blur, but not sure if it's FP stuff.  --160.79.219.133 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) --Bridgecross (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Pool tables are usually green yes, but generally, it isn't required to hold your cue over the table to chalk it. ;) The Idea of this shot is simple: to show the cue tip in the act of being chalked. Of course, I could have just had the hand with the chalk on the cue, but there is no way that would ever be visually impressive enough for FP. I figure this shot is more informative anyway, one can see the chalk cast off and gets an idea of the substance itself. I'd also like to add that I can not think of a practical way to have the entire cue visible, hence I think the cut off is acceptable as there are full images of cue sticks in both articles. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -per Victorrocha --Nelro (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the Encyclopedic Value is strong. In both cases, it is being used to illustrate how chalk is applied to the cue, rather than illustrating the cue or any other aspect of the sport, and the captions reflect this well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. DOF issues. The cue tip (which is the most important part, according to a comment above) is completely out of focus, and not even the whole piece of chalk is in focus. Clegs (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose and comment. The type of chalk shown (light blue/greenish) is commonly used on snooker cues, not on pool and billiard cues. Those use mostly darker blue chalk. Furthermore, although I think the image is relevant to the articles mentioned, it lacks the wow-factor most other FP's have. It's partly out of focus, and with all the little dots of chalk flying around (although accurate) it's too busy in my opinion. Fransw (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh give me a break, your opposing because of the color of the chalk? you have every right to oppose but I suggest you read anal-retentive and asinine before deciding whether you actually want to be taken seriously for your views here, I'd have a few more words to add to that list but there's only so far that IAR can be stretched without being attacked for WP:NPA and all the other internal acronym pages get their punches in. Cat-five - talk 08:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, give me a break, you're using IAR to justify personal attacks and name calling? How does that improve the encyclopedia? Doubt that page was created to justify insulting people. Clegs (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think he's opposing due to: "busyness" ;-) -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 19:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Though the voting has already closed, I still wish to react to this. I did indeed oppose because of the out-of-focus and the busyness (for lack of better wording) issues. The colour of the chalk was the "comment" part of my initial message. Fransw (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Encyclopedic yes but in my opinion not FPC material due to DOF and other issues, hoping that you'll stop taking breaks though we need more fpcs from you. Cat-five - talk 08:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Cat-five. Though I disagree that it is indeed an 'encyclopedic' image.-- mcshadypl T C  19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)