Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Karen woman weaving.jpg

File:A Karen woman weaving.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2022 at 10:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A Karen woman weaving.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Karen woman weaving.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
•  Info created and uploaded by Varvara Kless-Kaminskaia - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pleasant colors and lighting, however I think that perspective with full human body would be much better. Other featured pictures in this category also have full or nearly full human bodies. See relevant FPs examples: 1, 2. I believe this picture is not on the same level, sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment If your main worry is that this does not fit the category, because you expect to see all of a person there, please suggest another category. I believe full body pictures have their worth, but so do images that show only a certain detail, in this case the hands. --Kritzolina (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support quality is not perfect, but I like the composition. Tomer T (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Tomer T. The focus is exactly on the point where the weaving happens. --Aristeas (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose The clothes are traditional, but not the watch and wrist bands. The focus should be on the hands, but they are blurred. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Another picture that I would expect to see in National Geographic. I like it for the reason Charles doesn't: the juxtaposition between the modern accessories and the traditional clothes and craft. As well as the bright color. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I simply don't see the wow factor. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Daniel Case -- IamMM (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose No the wow factor (as IamMM). -- Karelj (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• (as SHB2000 most probably) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose Fine as QI but not so striking an image in my view. Agree with Pofka. I also regret the DoF is very shallow. Too limited focus range. The ring is unsharp, and the blurry foreground corner rather distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)