Ultimate Layout

Self nominated at the suggestion of Christopherlin. The picture is from Ultimate (sport), and was taken by Scobel Wiggins at the 2006 club ultimate national tournament in sarasota, florida. The picture itself is a great example of an action shot and portrays beautifully a layout.

• Nominate and support. - Leppy 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose resolution is unsufficient for FP-status Calderwood 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, too low-res according to current (consensus?) standards. Also, background is too messy, the main subject does not stand out. -- Janke | Talk 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Could you possibly upload a larger version (at least 1000px, the more detailed the better)? FPs other than those depicting unique historic events should be big enough not just for article inclusion, but to allow quality reproductions in other formats. As it stands, I'm afraid this isn't big enough to be eligible whatever its other merits. Great shot though — for once I disagree with Janke's verdict and I think the DOF does enough for the subject & the people in the background add value  :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - great pic but hoplessly too small - Adrian Pingstone 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose – good pic, but small, DOF too deep – Joke 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, for now – great pic, but someone needs to contact the photographer for a higher res version as was discussed on Talk:Ultimate (sport). The DOF adds to the descriptive quality of the picture, plain and simple. If the pic was illustrating the player or the act of bidding, then the background would be distracting, but it isn't. It is illustratign Ultimate, which is characterized by informality and people sitting on the sidelines. In the article, there is enough difference in sharpness to clearly show the foreground wihout distraction. People who think the DOF detracts from the photo need to learn more about the culture of the sport as the on-field action is only half of the picture. (pun intended)— WAvegetarian• _{CONTRIBUTIONS} ^TALK• ^EMAIL• 20:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

"The DOF adds to the descriptive quality of the picture, plain and simple." and "People who think the DOF detracts from the photo need to learn more about the culture of the sport"? I know plenty about the culture of ultimate, and I know plenty about sports photography, and I think that the DOF is too deep. You should feel free to disagree, but don't assert some kind of ultimate authority. It sounds petulant. – Joke 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Oppose Image:UltiClubNationals05Layout.jpg depicts a sweet play, but as already stated, it does not have sufficient resolution. Alvinrune ^TALK 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Too small. ~ MDD 46 96 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Conditional support (can I do that?) once larger image is available. Are the oppose votes basically "too small"? I'd like to know how many of those would be support with a larger image. -- Christopherlin 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I got "What is your preferred size?" from Scobel. Any suggestions? Do we renominate or restart voting after the bigger one comes in? -- Christopherlin 22:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • As big as reasonably possible (not larger than 1MB or anything crazy). No need to restart, just add it on. Broken Segue 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Very small. Staxringold 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose much too small. chowells 15:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Not promoted -- liquidGhoul 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply