Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Soccer goalkeeper.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Soccer goalkeeper.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 12:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Master Sgt. Lance Cheung - uploaded by Stianbh - nominated by Thick thi sock -- Thick thi sock (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Thick thi sock (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't believe Commons should become a mean of propaganda for the US Army, with all due respect. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Uh? What’s the pattern between a football (soccer) photography and the US Army? Do you see any military content here? Diti the penguin — 22:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy :( Rastrojo (D•ES) 14:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Noisy, but good action shot. --Lošmi (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much action blur, in my opinion, and not the best framing. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nice action shot. Laurent (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Could be better: too much noise, some unwanted vignetting; but nice action photography. Diti the penguin — 22:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I do not believe the vignetting is unwanted - it could easily have been removed. It rather creates a tunnel effect, which supports the impression of speed and movement. -- H005 10:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support I usually do not support this USAF propaganda crap but this is military-free and a great shot. -- H005
- Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Blur. Steven Walling 01:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ουδέτερο per Diti. Thank you, --патриот8790Say whatever you want 06:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Agree with H005. MartinD (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Steven Walling et al. Where did they find a person who looks so much like Frankenstein's Monster?? MPF (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose because the ball is blurred. This is the focal-point of the image, therefore it should be clear. --Tb240904 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Odd. To me it looks like the player (e.g. the expression on his face, his struggle to reach the ball) is the main subject of the image. A player should always keep his eye on the ball but the photographer isn't on the team. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Wolf (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Too blurry and too much noise. Jujutacular T · C 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Fleeting action shots deserve some special consideration, they are much harder to get sharp than stationary subjects. This has an exciting mood, and the motion blur on the ball only gives it more activity. --99of9 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support An unblurred ball is a little bit asked too much. :-) Really great picture, the composition, the way the keeper looks... --Ziko (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support, and I agree with 99of9 and Ziko. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support action.-- Mbz1 13:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nice action. --Karel (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Jklamo (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Wolf (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Ja bym wam chętnie pokazał, pod hajrem i jak boniedydy, prawdziwą propagandę dla, psia kość, dosadnego porównania, i w te pędy skończyłyby się te nieprzytomne wydziwiania. Niektórym chyba przydałoby się z piętnaście lat życia w peerelowskim reżimie.
- Oppose As last time. Lycaon (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support because of the good composition, although the quality is not that good. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 9 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
