Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden boomerang asv2021-05.jpg

File:Wooden boomerang asv2021-05.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2021 at 16:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden boomerang asv2021-05.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden boomerang asv2021-05.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Toys
•  Info A wooden returning boomerang. All by A.Savin --A.Savin 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support The placing of the boomerang adds a subtle irritation, just enough to make me think twice – is this a boomerang or a mysterious sign, maybe the Hebrew letter resh or another mystic glyph? An effective example of the art to turn everyday tools into meaningful subjects. --Aristeas (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• It's actually an oxbow lake in the Brazilian jungle. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that must be the answer! ;–) This sums up what I wanted to say: the ‘what is this?’ is the strength of this shot. --Aristeas (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Llez (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose L'émotion n'est pas démesurément intense. L'herbe est nette, incontestablement, l'appareil SONY ILCE-7RM3 a réalisé un remarquable travail de mise au point, en revanche, le boomerang, que je considère comme pièce maîtresse de la composition, est légèrement insatisfaisant de mon point de vue subjectif. Pas assez dynamique. Peut-être que l'objet fera un formidable score au concours POTY s'il est promu, mais cela m'étonnerait. Sur Wikipédia ils adorent ce genre de sujets immobiles, qui ne procurent pas nécessairement de sentiment, cela peut valoir la peine de nominer là-bas, pour illustrer certains articles. Ici sur Commons, les directives stipulent que le factor wouah est prépondérant, or il me manque quelque chose d'original dans cette composition, comme une main 🖐 par exemple (Translate) -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment The background is distracting, like an OK bird photo and sitting flat on the grass doesn't work for me. However, for a 'what is this?' shot (see my comment above) it has interest. Depends on what we are being asked to judge. With an 'oxbow lake' file name, it would ask us to look at the image differently. What does XRay think, considering the EV discussion on the FPC talk page? Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for asking my humble opinion. However, I do not see myself as the decisive authority here. But I can still express my opinion: From my point of view, it is a good photograph and good QI, but something is missing for an FP. --XRay 💬 07:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• EV's surely there. --A.Savin 11:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Excellent QI/VI, but doesn't amaze me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Methodios (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Toys