Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/River pollution

River pollution

Reason: Rivers often become polluted for excess human activity. This image is showing that fact, this image is showing a rubbish-laden river with slums.
Articles this image appears in: River
Creator: originally posted to Flickr as Meanwhile, 1 mile away...

Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose what is this? Poor quality, not to mention it is way too snapshotty. It isn't even of a particular subject. All-around not FP quality. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is about river pollution and slums adjusent to river. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River pollution? That is not an FP worthy subject. And above all, the technical quality isn't good. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River pollution is not FP worthy? You are saying only a nice image of a river will be FP worthy, not the negative aspect like pollution? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not rive pollution as a whole, but just the way this image illustrates it. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose River pollution is a fine subject for FP, but this particular photo is not FP quality. Not the best composition and there's all sorts of weird chromatic aberration and other things that seem strange-looking but I don't know the technical names for. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shows sulms adjoining river. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to poor focus and lighting. Highly reproducible shots like this should be much higher quality/resolution. Cacophony (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically really poor/nothing for FP. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]