- Reason
- High-quality, encyclopedic and striking composition. The subject is clear enough that the small amount of motion blur doesn't bother me.
- Articles this image appears in
- Breakdance, Hip Hop, other Hip Hop-related pages
- Creator
- Sry85
- Support as nominator -- Sing Cal 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose The motion blur bothers me though. It is what defines the poor quality of the picture. I feel that the background is a little too distracting.-- mcshadypl T C 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The background is what really distracts me. Clegs ( talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per both above. The combo of the two is pretty terrible. Crassic! ( talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm okay with the background, but I do find the motion blur pretty distracting. When it comes to easily-replacable images, they really do have to be near perfect to be featured; while this is a good shot, it definitely has flaws. faithless (speak) 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support I think the background graininess is the problem--the motion blur of the subject is actually an asset. gren グレン 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -cool shot, but not very encyclopedic, background is distracting. Nelro ( talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Messy background, snapshot-type image. -- Janke | Talk 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't mind that it looks a bit like a snapshot, after-all, a slightly rough look is appropriate for the subject. However, the composition is off, with the foot to close to the top of the frame and the person in the background on the left partially obscured by the performer. Capital photographer ( talk) 06:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- High-quality, encyclopedic and striking composition. The subject is clear enough that the small amount of motion blur doesn't bother me.
- Articles this image appears in
- Breakdance, Hip Hop, other Hip Hop-related pages
- Creator
- Sry85
- Support as nominator -- Sing Cal 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose The motion blur bothers me though. It is what defines the poor quality of the picture. I feel that the background is a little too distracting.-- mcshadypl T C 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The background is what really distracts me. Clegs ( talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per both above. The combo of the two is pretty terrible. Crassic! ( talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm okay with the background, but I do find the motion blur pretty distracting. When it comes to easily-replacable images, they really do have to be near perfect to be featured; while this is a good shot, it definitely has flaws. faithless (speak) 01:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support I think the background graininess is the problem--the motion blur of the subject is actually an asset. gren グレン 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -cool shot, but not very encyclopedic, background is distracting. Nelro ( talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Messy background, snapshot-type image. -- Janke | Talk 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't mind that it looks a bit like a snapshot, after-all, a slightly rough look is appropriate for the subject. However, the composition is off, with the foot to close to the top of the frame and the person in the background on the left partially obscured by the performer. Capital photographer ( talk) 06:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)