Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wipeout

Wipeout

Reason: High EV, good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Surfing
Creator: mbz1

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew what's wrong with this one. Oh well, I withdraw my nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit premature, I think: it's only been up for 48 hours, and was listed at the weekend which is often quite a quiet time. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, but I know from my prior experiences that, if there was neither vote nor comment for 48 hours, it means that the image produced no interest at all. I do not know why, but whatever... --Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way, your pictures are so original people often do not know how to react. :-) I was looking at this... I could not decide about the EV of a wipeout, which is basically just someone falling down. Then again it is a pretty cool capture and wipeouts must be a regular part of the sport, so I might have given it a weak support. It's not a bad image at all, more of a different one, and I think people respond most often to what they're used to analyzing. You see dozens of flower macros, you form an idea of what qualities to look for, what flaws to point out. I don't think I've ever seen a still photo of a wipeout! So in that light, thank you for submitting it and hope you don't lose patience with FPC. Fletcher (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support crop -- in terms of technical quality and interestingness, the original photo is excellent. However, my main concern is that its EV is a bit weak, since the picture itself doesn't make it clear how the wipeout occurred. This would not be so much of a problem if the subject occupied more of the frame, but in the picture the main subject is very small. Consequently, I've done a crop of the picture, which places more emphasis on how the wipeout has happened: in my crop, the point of the wave that the surfer has just been thrown from is emphasised much more strongly. Your caption on the image page also adds a lot of EV since it describes the wipeout as being of the 'freefall' type: more EV would gained if this were mentioned in the Surfing article. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the subject needs to be much bigger in the frame. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know if it's possible to illustrate this without a movie or a series of pictures. Would be nice to see where he came from. I think the resolution of the surfer is okay as long as it's the phenomenon that we're focusing on. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments and for votes. Surely oppose votes are better than no votes at all :). I cannot agree with any of oppose reasons. Noodle snacks, the resolution of the image allows to crop it out to have the surfer fill out the whole frame, but to show a surfer wipeout. the wave is as show a pianist without piano, for example. Papa Lima Whiskey, illustrate without with a single shot is as possible as illustrate any other surfing maneuver with a single shot.After all a falling surfer is a falling surfer

--Mbz1 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose, because the surfer seems a long way from the wave, which lessens the picture's impact, and because he is partly obscured by his board. Good action shot though. And I would support the latest inline pic above in a heartbeat. -- Avenue (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]