Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld 850 1484.jpg

File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld 850 1484.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 21:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Granada (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are so used to all the grand vistas with alps and mountains here, that it is actually quite refreshing to see them just as a bokeh backdrop to these crisp athletes. Nice! --cart-Talk 22:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to most important part of the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and very good artistic pictureLmbuga (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. JukoFF (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was set to oppose but I looked at it at full size. Detail on the skiers makes up for the distracting background. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, and I nice that the subjects stand apart like that (though I can agree a little bit with Daniel) - Benh (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can not handle the composition. The focus of the camera is on the athletes. Very good. But to me the blurred mountains are too dominant in the image. --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Milseburg. The eyes instantly go to the mountains which are very blurry and the skiiers seem to be an afterthought. PumpkinSky talk 12:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the blurred mountains don't work for me. Charles (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of focus mountains does not work for me. -- Pofka (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought about this for a while and held off my vote, but Milseburg summarized my feelings very well. It's good quality, but the out-of-focus mountains just take up too much attention. I guess maybe a higher DoF could be the answer, but I'm not sure that's possible.--Peulle (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the objections but for me this composition works. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion without the out-of-focus-mountains this pic would be boring. For me the composition is the value of this image. --Stepro (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the others. HalfGig talk 02:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg.--Ermell (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 21:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]