Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barrington river

Barrington river

 * Reason:From my viewpoint this is a very high quality image. I found it whilst random articling. &mdash; Arjun 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles this image appears in:Barrington Tops National Park
 * Creator:DanF
 * Nominator: &mdash; Arjun


 * Support &mdash; &mdash; Arjun 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - beautiful image. Yuser31415 04:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Edit conflict! There are some pretty serious blown highlights in the water, as well as some purple fringing at the edges. -- Tewy  04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I would hang that picture in a library.-- ¿  Why  1  9  9  1   ESP.  |  Sign Here  05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice catch with the purple fringing Tewy but it's still a great image --⁪froth T C  06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ack Tewy, plus there is blurryness in the top-left corner, and while being pretty the subject lacks notability/enc. --Dschwen 09:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very serene and encyclopedic pic! However, as noted above, there are a few blemishes, none of which really detracts from the pic.    Jumping cheese  Cont @  ct 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tewy, and overall dark lighting, bland composition, low encyclopedic value. --Bridgecross 14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Adds minimal encyclopedic value to article, visually uninteresting, blown highlights. &mdash;Dgiest c 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Although some of you may find this to be unencyclopedic, you must note that not every place in the world has streams and this does capture the very essance of what a stream is. The shot is high quality, so I see no reason why this shouldn't be an FP.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This image isn't in the stream article so it doesn't really help people to understand that concept. It is only in the National Park article. It does illustrate that article reasonably well but it just isn't that high quality image. It has a few faults and isn't particularly noteworthy. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per my comments above, not an outstanding image and not particularly noteworthy. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The lighting is bad, and it doesn't illustrate it's subject ver well, as Diliff mentioned. Nautica Shad e  s  11:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have squillions like this. It's, as very carefully noted, "a mountain stream" - we don't even know which one. The lighting is poor, it's not that sharp, and the choice of shutter speed isn't great - the water is blurry but not smoothly so. Even some of the bushes are blurry. Lastly, what's with the file name - is this actually a river called Barrington River? If so, perhaps there should be an article on it - Barrington River appears to be about a river in the US. Stevage 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)