Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Goalkeeper

Goalkeeper

Reason: Composition, facial expression, good motion blur.
Articles this image appears in: Association football, Goalkeeper, Association football positions
Creator: Master Sgt. Lance Cheung

Support as nominator -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Its okay, a little dull, i would not say this is one of the best images Wikipedia has to offer. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and because nothing is really in focus. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No chance that he's not hanging from wires. :D\=< (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. SingCal 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Increasing the saturation may help. Sifaka ^talk 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support from picture peer review, I liked the dynamic action and composition. A striking image. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. As with Jeff, I liked this at PPR, but commented there that it would probably need a bit of 'work' done on it before being nominated here. As it hasn't had any improvements made I can only weak support. --jjron (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose too much motion blur, not enough context (how big is this goal that he is guarding?). I'd support on Commons, but my opinion is that is suffers from a lac of enc. Cacophony (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting reason - aren't all soccer goals a standard size (except for ones intentionally made smaller, such as for children's games)? --jjron (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting, dynamic shot. Muhammad(talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too grainy for my liking, sorry --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hadseys--CPacker (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be possible to downsample this a little? I looks good grain-wise at about 2/3 rez, and the dynamic composition might--might--excuse some focusing issues.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]