Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunset over an artificial Arizona Lake

Sunset over an Arizona Lake

I found this picture in the article Lake, Water reservoir, and Arizona. The photogragher is Rich Niewiroski Jr. I think the photo is as good as they get (the lake pictures, I mean), the equal of this one,

, which is already featured.

Nominate and Support | AndonicO 17:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about those problems, I hope nobody saw that. | AndonicO 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Visible noise in clouds. Redquark 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a pretty photo, but I am failing to see the encyclopedic value. What exactly does it illustrate? Because of the sunset, the detail of the water and mountains are lost in shadow.--Andrew c 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Edit 1. First time being nominated here. Don't have too much knowledge on this process, but am happy to see it caught someone's eye. I took Redquark's comments into consideration and removed as much of the noise as possible in the first edit. Just a limitation of a digital camera from 2001 I guess. As for encyclopedic value, I can definitely see Andrew c's point, but I think it does have value in both the sunset and lake articles. The editors of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes seem to also think it has enough value to put it in several templates. Whatever the outcome, I'll appreciate learning this process in my attempt to be a good editor and Wikipedian. Roguegeek (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very nice, but I agree with Andrew c that the shadows do detract from the image a little bit. BTW, any idea what lake this is? --Nebular110 03:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unencyclopaedic. It adds somewhat to the articles but nowhere near enough to be FP. It is just far too generic looking. We don't even know what the name of the lake is or where in Arizona it is?? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even the edit has much too much noise. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soft focus, lack of uncyclopedic value. HighInBC 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. NegativeNed 23:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Off the scale on highs and lows, also unencyclopedic. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]