Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Diepenbeek

Diepenbeek[edit]

This picture is in the article Diepenbeek; it does not say who is the author. The picture is visually astounding, with Crepuscular rays shining through the trees. This is a featured picture at the commons as well.

Commons:User:Bios is the author. howch e ng {chat} 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and Support | AndonicO Talk 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty, but it could be anywhere. Pretty pictures are enough for commons, but what is this telling us? As the caption itself says, this isn't Diepenbeek.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not technically perfect, but I believe beauty has a place in Wikipedia. - Alvesgaspar 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not encyclopedic. Our criteria are different from the ones on Commons. --Janke | Talk 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just looks like a park. howch e ng {chat} 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am quite suprised it is a Commons FP. The quality is rather bad and the highlights are clearly blown. Also, the subject is quite undistinctive. NauticaShad e s 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lovely picture but just not special enough - Adrian Pingstone 08:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's very nice looking, but it lacks a clear subject. --Tewy 21:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture, not good enough for featured status though. Hello32020 02:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, when it comes to pictures you must reflect your life upon them if you can then it is a good pic, if you can't then not so great. A very good picture.---S e adog 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]