Kiril Lazarov
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2011 at 04:34:13 (UTC)
- Reason
- High Ev as lead image of the article and featured on Commons
- Articles in which this image appears
- Kiril Lazarov
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
- Creator
- Kuebi
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, EV Only being used in a single article that is stub length. (not notable...minor sport of minor country...this is not Nadia Comenici's perfect 10.) Great photo though. If there were more usage, e.g. justified and well-integrated placement in some more articles (team, sport, etc.) than I might reconsider.TCO (reviews needed) 18:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If we're allowing minor plant and animal species to get FP status, I don't see why a different EV standard applies to minor sports players. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (sig fixed)
- Yeah, I'm kinda trying to converge and figure out even a consistent position for myself. And I know it will be different than the traditional FP nature shooters (OK though, please don't ban me...we can all have different priorities...vive la difference). I'm kind of OK with the minor sport, but the minor country adding onto that, plus the articl itself being so minimal and no
shameless pimpingthoughtful and justified integration into overall handball articles, argues against it.TCO (reviews needed) 20:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)- FWIW 12 out of 21 images in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport are American baseball players (along with more American baseball images in other categories). Baseball is a relatively minor sport on a world scale - for example how many other sports have a so-called "World" Series held in a single country? By comparison, the world's most popular competitive sport Association football (soccer) is represented by a single FP. But that's OK; after all why should we feature anything from Macedonia? Hmmm. I guess there's nothing like addressing Systemic bias is there. --jjron (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm kinda trying to converge and figure out even a consistent position for myself. And I know it will be different than the traditional FP nature shooters (OK though, please don't ban me...we can all have different priorities...vive la difference). I'm kind of OK with the minor sport, but the minor country adding onto that, plus the articl itself being so minimal and no
- Support <IMHO>Featured Pictures is not the place to decide notability. If a topic is deemed notable enough to have its own article, and the picture illustrates the subject well (in this case, a person), then EV is good to go.</IMHO> The picture looks good technically, especially for what is presumably an action shot. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support after considering comments from TCO, Brains, and J Milburn (on a separate FPC). Ignoring the EV issue, it would be better if the player's face was clearer on the full size image. Colors and pose are good, and I like the angle of the player's body relative to the frame. Pine (GreenPine) t 08:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support. The EV is fine, and TCO's arguments are clearly not based on the featured picture criteria. The composition is excellent, and, at thumbnail, this is a great portrait. However, I suspect this has been cropped, or perhaps not taken with the best camera, and so, quality-wise, it's not quite stunning. FPC, the same as FAC, GA, FLC, whatever, is about judging the quality of the content, not about us making our own little judgements about whether a subject is "worthy" of a bronze star. Much like TCO, I don't really care much for sport, but I do care about a lot of things that others will consider unimportant, and I know that TCO does the same. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a meta difference. As long as you don't stop counting my votes, I won't begrudge you your opinions. I suspect that you still implicitly consider some of what I consider. For instance, when we have a photo of something very important (high coverage, etc.) we favor it. If we do that, we're implicitly making a difference to the deteriment of others. And...Pulitzer...EV...blabla. But just don't ban me, please. New peeps, new insights :-) TCO (reviews needed) 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd certainly rather have decent photographs of important topics, just as much as I love to see FAs on highly important topics. That doesn't mean I'm going to oppose images of/articles on topics I consider unimportant. There's certainly nothing in the criteria that suggests that we should be opposing whatever we deem unimportant. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a meta difference. As long as you don't stop counting my votes, I won't begrudge you your opinions. I suspect that you still implicitly consider some of what I consider. For instance, when we have a photo of something very important (high coverage, etc.) we favor it. If we do that, we're implicitly making a difference to the deteriment of others. And...Pulitzer...EV...blabla. But just don't ban me, please. New peeps, new insights :-) TCO (reviews needed) 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support mostly per RunningOnBrains. Jujutacular talk 03:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral It is noisy and front focused, so his face is out of focus. Neutral because quality sports photos seem to be hard to get. Runningonbrains is right though - we should just apply the wikipedia criteria for notability rather than come up with some individual arbitrary standard. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support --kaʁstn 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Kiril Lazarov 06.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)