Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Water pollution 2

Water pollution in Lake Maracaibo
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 20:17:50 (UTC)
 * Reason:After the previous nomination about water pollution in Lake Maracaibo, a new picture was uploaded, which addresses the request for more context in the previous nomination. I think this picture meets the criteria.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Water pollution, Lake Maracaibo
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
 * Creator:Wilfredor


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A decent picture but not particularly striking or unusual (sadly). I disagree with its (current) use as the lead image of the water pollution article, which is almost exclusively about pollution dissolved or suspended in water, rather than "trash" washed up on the shore (it merits one sentence). The picture is also far from the most important in the lake article. -- Colin°Talk 11:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppse per Colin - doesn't really show water pollution, more general rubbish with a lake in the background... And doesn't really show enough of the lake to be good EV for the lake... gaz hiley  09:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the views given here - we have in the past promoted FPs for stub articles. This creates a precedent for situations where as long as the scope is correct, we grant that the image has EV, even if the article needs development. Since nobody has made the case that floating debris does not form part of the water pollution lemma, I don't see how this image can be considered ineligible. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think a photograph of trash on the shore "adds significantly" (per criteria) to an article that is 99% not about trash on the shore. If one had access to a decent photo library, this wouldn't be anyone's shortlist (never mind first choice) to illustrate an article on water pollution. IMO it is only in the lead because the photographer put it there, and because some of the other pictures are weak on a technical level. -- Colin°Talk 10:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

--Julia\talk 19:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)