Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Face-off

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Face-off[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 04:27:39 (UTC)

Original - Series showing Louie Caporusso winning a face-off
Reason
This is about as high EV as a set of action sports images can get in their primary use
Articles in which this image appears
face-off
Louie Caporusso (only 1 of set)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Greg Sommers (flickr user Greg-ography)
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this angle is not successful. see here Thoraeton (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The composition is lacking IMO. The image Thoraeton links is a superior angle. Also, I don't feel like the multiple images really add anything. There is no clear progression from one to the next for me. Jujutacular T · C 05:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you prefer an angle looking straight at an arse of a main subject?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the main subject is the face-off then it cannot have an arse... Gazhiley (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll note that in the nominated images we're looking straight at the ref's arse as well ;) But seriously, I just get a much better sense of the situation in the other image. In the nominated images, the ref's back is covering up too much. Jujutacular T · C 11:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unimpressive snapshots. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the strength of this set is the action sequence: 1-The puck is dropped, 2-Caporusso wins the puck, 3-He passes it under his opponent, whose move fails to steal the puck. While you could argue that the individual images might not have an optimal composition, I think action is the most important thing here. -- Orionist ★ talk 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To someone who doesn't know a thing about the sport the series of images is near useless. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought we were suppose to assume the reader knows what he is looking for when he chances on a page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We assume are readers are experts about everything they read and are not visiting it to learn something about it? News to me. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not experts. Page naming conventions and hatnote conventions are based on assuming people know what they are looking for and can spell it correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure, I accept they know what they're looking for and are not just random mindless robots randomly looking at random stuff for no meaning. But that doesn't mean someone wanting to know about face-offs visiting face-off will be able to understand and follow whats going on in these three images. It would need explanation, probably arrows and drawings over the picture to indicate the flow of the puck, it would also be FAR more valuable to have a video of this exchange, so they can actually see the action of whats going on. Trying to condense something as dynamic as this into 3 shots is not easy, and I don't feel this does it well. It's just too hard to follow the action, to much time has gone between the shots to follow the movement and know what took place. Without being told whats going on you couldn't pick up on it from the pictures, imho. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Look man. You know I am a soul brother. We don't even know nothing about hockey or any of those other sports that have faceoffs like lacrosse or field hockey. I halfway understand the image. I am pretty sure I put them in the proper order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • P.S. Hockey would be better off if they had some kind of jump ball.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can agree there, basketball is my fav sport. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 21:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec)To be fair, we do feature some highly technical images. Scientific diagrams, for instance, some of which presume considerable understanding from readers when shown on independently of the article in which they appear (and even the articles are sometimes very technical). I don't think that quite applies here; the image is hardly featured in the most technical of articles. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sports photos are exceedingly ubiquitous and this composition and its lighting simply looks unremarkable. This is going to be a tough one to shoot without lots of flash fill because the players are too dark and there is no obvious fix without blowing out the ice. Greg L (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would suggest that this belongs in sport if it is determined to have more EV in face-off (or other people if it is determined to have more EV in the other). J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Greg L and Raeky (video suggestion)... Gazhiley (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would be ideal if the picture was taken from the opposite side such that the referee isn't in the way. Also, the few number of pictures prevents one from really understanding what actions are occurring.-- mcshadypl TC 00:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't like the composition on this shot, nor the angle, it doesn't seem anything special, certainly not too difficult to reproduce and get a better shot. Jfitch (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Face-off&oldid=1138498985"