Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flaming poi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Flaming poi
Self-nom. I took this picture a couple of years ago, and like the way it gives the impression of really watching one of these guys do their stuff (though it's best seen at a larger size than this thumbnail). I believe it illustrates Fire dancing well (though there are several other pictures there along-side this one). I've released the image into GFDL - — Asbestos | Talk 08:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. — Asbestos | Talk 08:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Very impressive. Easily the best version on the Fire dancing page. -- Solipsist 08:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support. - Great photo. Ian 13:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Sango123 19:06, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Denni☯ 23:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
- Support a fire dancing "Hot Shot". Very Nice. TomStar81 02:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, small with compression artifacts. I've seen better. ed g2s • talk 11:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- I would also argue it doesn't actually illustrate fire dancing that well, e.g. a short exposure closeup of a sparkler would illustrate it better than someone writing their name in the air with it on a long exposure. ed g2s • talk 11:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'd agree with you if the article were on "sparklers", instead of "writing your name with sparklers". Here, though, the article it illustrates is "Fire dancing", where movement is very much key to everything these guys do: it's the movement that I wanted to illustrate the article with, not a static picture of a poi. — Asbestos | Talk 09:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- I would also argue it doesn't actually illustrate fire dancing that well, e.g. a short exposure closeup of a sparkler would illustrate it better than someone writing their name in the air with it on a long exposure. ed g2s • talk 11:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, quality issues. – ugen64 03:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, low res, quality issues --Fir0002 22:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The borderline low resolution is forgiveable; the compression artifacts are not. —Korath (Talk) 23:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, artifacts and low resolution. It's hard to make the picture out. BrokenSegue 03:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Not promoted +7 / -5 -- Solipsist 06:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
