Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Worlds Largest And Emptiest Mall

Reason: David290 recently took a series of excellent photos to illustrate the New South China Mall article. The New South China Mall is a marvel of overbuilding -- the world's largest (with room for over 2,000 stores), yet 99% unoccupied since its 2005 opening. The nominated photo shows an eerie combination of an empty public retail space with garish hanging decorations suited for a busy market (note the "for lease" signs hanging among the floating English alphabet characters.) I am hoping that selection as a Featured Picture would draw more attention to this fascinating article and David's gallery. This is the first time I have nominated a picture.
Articles in which this image appears: New South China Mall
Creator: David290

Support as nominator --Milowent (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It has fairly poor image quality but it's a significant subject and not a scene you see every day (although given the size of it, this is just the tip of the iceberg). I've uploaded a perspective corrected version of it but I'm not sure if I can support it because of the image quality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality-wise, the photo is poor. It also does not illustrate the "eerie"-ness that the nominator refers to. It is difficult to see that this mall is in fact "empty" in any respect.-- mcshadypl ^T ^C 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, things aren't looking good for my nomination. I am not a photo expert so I can't argue much with your opinions on that. You visual types, though, would probably enjoy the PBS documentary short made about the mall [1], it conveys the eerie nature of the huge empty space quite well. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the field of view needs to be wider. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- quality is low, even when the image is downsized considerably. Composition and lighting could be better. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the procedure, but I happy to withdraw the nomination at this point. I'll come back wiser next time. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per myself and above. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]