Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two brave girls - Polar Bear Plunge 2009.jpg

File:Two brave girls - Polar Bear Plunge 2009.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2010 at 12:21:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Two brave girls - Polar Bear Plunge 2009.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two brave girls - Polar Bear Plunge 2009.jpg

•  Info created by Dori - uploaded by Dori - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Strong support - Etincelles (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nice colors, good composition, movment, intresting situation. Well done. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral Like an amateur photo, but interesting. Too much crop at bottom IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why is it "Like an amateur photo"? (Aren't almost all our photos made by amateurs?) I agree about the crop, it's too tight. —kallerna™ 17:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per UnreifeKirsche --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Good addition to people category.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Nice photo however, there is too much crop at the bottom and I feel that it is too amateur to be an FL, sorry--Pianoplonkers (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Do you mean FP? Yes there is too little space a the bottom, but I don't think you should reject it just because of that tiny problem. Etincelles (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Nice picture. Rejecting for that little space will be sad. Tanvir 10:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - nice colors, composition and DOF. A slight regret because of sharpness and the bottom crop. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  SupportI like it.--663h (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Hejsa (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry, nice and courageous girls but ordinary photo -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree, the crop is too tight, it was the best I could do though as there were people around, and I only had a split second to take this shot. They posed for pictures as soon as they got near the ledge, but I didn't like those shots. --Dori - Talk 01:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Dori -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - A nice photo, but it seems to me a snapshot be Je-str (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive. --Aktron (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support After some time of consideration I decided to be in favour of this picture; considering the circumstances, I think the quality is good enough for FP – and the composition is great! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support its not an insect, not a bird, not a cute animal,... do we have any similar FP's? :-) --Amada44 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Question Did they take their boots off before getting in the water? Snowmanradio (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not sure, they didn't go in during this run, they just ran to the edge and posed for pictures. --Dori - Talk 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment If they did not go for a swim, then I find the image description and the file name are misleading, and I think that the documentation of this file is inadequate at FP level. "Two brave girls" would tend to suggest that they did go for a swim, but they are wearing boots. I think that they image description should clearly say that they just posed at the edge of the water and this would explain why they are wearing boots. I think that any mention of being "brave" should be removed from the file name, because it does tend to suggest that they went into the water and I have not heard any evidence to indicate that they did go in the water. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 1. I picked neither the name, nor the description, nor nominated the image. 2. "brave" could refer simply to being out in that cold with such a skimpy outfit, though I wouldn't characterize this or actually going in as brave, and I don't like the editorializing. In fact, I've since deleted the source image in flickr as it was just being seen as girls in skimpy outfit. I would be OK with this image being deleted from Commons too, but I don't feel like going through that process. --Dori - Talk 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "Two brave girls - Polar Bear Plunge" : the good faith understanding of this to me is that they did go in the water. You could amend the image documentation and the file name even though someone else wrote them. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I could, but so could you at this point and you seem more interested to do so. As I mentioned my preference would be for the complete removal, not amendment. Also Polar Bear Plunge as you can tell by the capitalization, refers to the event as a whole, not the actual plunging. --Dori - Talk 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I think the image description could make that clearer. I think that you are the best person to update the image documentation, because you were there. I do not want to guess at the circumstances or events surrounding the photograph. I think that the people in the photograph should probably described as women and not girls, but again I do not know much about the photograph. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Nice different photo --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well made women, but lack of foreground. Inadequate documentation. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Looks like a mediocre snapshot to me. Kaldari (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--Econt (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)