Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Toyota Celica 2004 GT-S

[[Media:TC2004GTS-AP.jpeg|Toyota Celica, 2004 GT-S Model]]
This is a self-nomination. This picture illustrates the Toyota Celica article. A picture was taken by me specifically for this article (at the time, only older model was pictured, and, considering how Celica changed over time, it was not enough). 
 * Nominate and support.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you have a larger resolution version perhaps? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:30, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * I can rescan it. What resolution would you like to use?&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:01, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While it may be a nice crisp picture, I would really have to stretch to see it in any way suitable as a featured picture. It is not "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant" in any way. Nice snapshot though. Wish my car looked that good. Denni &#9775; 23:23, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * Comment. Couldn't you say that it's just about as "beautiful, striking, shocking..." as Image:Corvette-je-1958.jpg? Or perhaps it's the change in background from nice scenery to a brick wall? Enochlau 20:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A good photo, but not a featured picture. Definitely upload a higher resolution version though. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  04:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Don't like the lighting. Shadows too prevalent.  I don't think this shot would be good enough for a Toyota catalogue... so I don't think it's featured quality. -- GWO
 * And if shadows are removed?&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support --ScottyBoy900Q &#8734; 00:10, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 03:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Janderk 14:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. andrewphelps 23:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) How in God's name is this image "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating" or "brilliant"? It's a picture of a car, and one that is of standard composition and light quality. It's not entirely in focus, the background is ugly, and the crop is too loose. It's completely non-unique. The list of "Featured Pictures" should be extremely short! Images in this list elicit an immediate and uncontrollable "Wow" upon viewing. // Appendage: By the way, I am not trying to be an ass or criticize anyone's contributions. I just want this list taken seriously.
 * Oppose. Nice shot but not feature-quality.
 * Not promoted. +2/-5. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  04:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)