Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Namib desert

Namib_desert

Reason: This image is a beautiful desert.
Articles this image appears in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib_Desert
Creator: Cnes - Spot Image

Support as nominator --Spot Image (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please re-check the article, the picture is not there -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even if the image was there, this is 500px below minum size requirements. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And even if that wasn't the case the watermark (FWIW claiming it is copyrighted) would discount it anyway. Note that according to the Commons account, Spot Image and Spot Image Talk, this user is an employee of the Spot Image company and is legitimately sharing the images. Sharing them without the watermarking would be better. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Watermarked and small -> ineligible. I also propose a toast to Magritte. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose water mark spoiling visuals, too small, M.K. (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC) p.s. it seems that this pic. is not used anywhere now :([reply]
Oppose - way too small, not stunning, watermark, possible licensing issues. _{Nominator's motives may not be in the best interests of FPC.} —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be bigger, words in lower left are distracting, and I don't really know what I'm looking at...is the blue stuff just how the sand is, or is it water? I'd also like to note that it doesn't appear in any articles. Spencer^T♦^C 21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Watermark ruins the image. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Watermark is very distracting and raises major questions about licensing issues. Hmmm, and the watermark is the same as the user's name. Attempt at self-promotion? Sorry, we aren't that blind here. Clegs (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]