Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Softball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2014 at 07:42:51 (UTC)

OriginalSimon Fraser Clan women's softball team, 2010. From left to right: batter Carly Moir, pitcher Trisha Bouchard and batter Stefani Durrant.
Looks like they're ready (high EV).
Articles in which this image appears
Softball, Simon Fraser Clan
FP category for this image
Fiona Burrows
  • Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 07:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Hmmm, it's a creative composition, but I feel like the players are a little bit underexposed. It's clear that the light (what light there is anyway) is coming mainly from behind and to the left. A fill flash would have made them stand out more. Also, I'm not against historical images when they have notability but it's relatively low in notability in this case. None of the players have their own article, and the fact that it spells out 2010 in the image makes it seem a bit 'stale' in 2014. I mean, are people looking at the Softball article really going to be interested in a team from a Canadian university from four years ago? Even Simon Fraser Clan is an article about sports teams in general at the university, not the softball team specifically. At best it has low EV in both of the articles. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it's about softball equipment, that is bats, glove and balls, all of which are shown, so EV is there IMO. Brandmeistertalk 09:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd be all over this picture if I were still president of my high school's yearbook club, but from a professional/encyclopedic perspective I think it falls short. Lighting and composition are subpar within the realm of formal portraiture; as a broad illustration of softball, it doesn't convey much info about how the sport is played or celebrated. I feel any EV is limited to the very specialized topic of the Simon Fraser Clan, and while I'm not opposed to obscure topics being represented in FPs, the image quality is simply not there. Sorry. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OpposeZZZzzzz. Lacks visual interest. Sca (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's a little rude to put "ZZzzz" as the sole justification for an oppose. 'Wow' is obviously a factor for many FPs but remember that obscure subjects can still be featured. It's about EV more than personal interest. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I've been telling Sca that for months, and linking to the featured picture criteria on the off chance that Sca will read them and understand why I linked them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
As I've argued before, the Main Page of English WP is more than the home page of an online encyclopedia — it's a medium seen by millions daily that perforce competes visually with other media on the Net. If you disagree, fine; let's move on. (But please stop pushing the Rule Book at me. Thank you.) Sca (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
PS: I agree with User:Juliancolton's remarks above. Sca (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Once you have shown that you have read and understood the rules, I'll consider it. Right now your opposes tend to fall far short of what the rules ask for. Some seem to be going in the right direction, but then opposes like these... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment Criterion #3 does state that "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". A boring photo will not urge the viewer to know more. The girls in the photo belong to a less-important team (softball is the last team mentioned in the article for the Simon Fraser Club), of an obscure club, of a less-popular sport. The photo is posed and does not show the whole team (or even the correct amount of players that are on the field at the time). Needless to say, the optimum kind of picture for a sport-FP would be an action shot. (writing "ZZZzzzz" is quite rude though) --Ebertakis (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is why we have "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image." right at the top of this page. If Sca were to write, say, "the colouring is quite bland, and the encyclopedic value of this image is low because it is a posed photograph rather than an action shot", I doubt there would have been any comments regarding said oppose. But no, we've gotten "Zzzzzz" five or six times. For new contributors, it's enough to possibly make them never come back. For old hands, it's just plain disrespectful; many of us (myself included) would like feedback so that we can improve our photography/restorations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The striking yellow crushes with the red ot the clothing and creates a nervous quality. Hafspajen (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)