Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:RioparaguayJune2005.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Río Paraguay, looking at Asunción

Río Paraguay, the largest river in Paraguay, in June 2005
Río Paraguay, the largest river in Paraguay, in June 2005
Another version
Another version

I believe the picture is eye-catching and fits the section of the article it is in (Geography of Paraguay --> Drainage, about rivers in Paraguay, specifically Río Paraguay and Río Paraná). From at least an aesthetic point, it breaks the monotonous white background-black text that covers large swaths of the lower part of the page - dozens of lines; it also illustrates the river that the drainage section is talking about.

I created the image.

  • Nominate and support. - Zafiroblue05 23:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • severe vignetting and quite poor focus....--Deglr6328 00:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • though now that I've added the image to the vignetting article I just don't know how to vote :).--Deglr6328 00:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - definitely severe vignetting and poor focus... I'm not a professional photographer (I had no idea what vignetting was 10 minutes ago), and I took this picture with a disposable camera on a speeding bus on a bumpy bridge in a third world country which I just might never see again; because there are few Wikipedians from Paraguay, it's unlikely a comparable but technically superior photo will be uploaded any time soon. And be a little charitable, please - Soft focus, how about? :) Just kidding. Zafiroblue05 00:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As a side note, I uploaded another image decreasing the vignetting as much as I can (and increasing saturation), if the vignetting is a big deal. Personally, I like the first better, and still would put up for contention the first, not the second. Zafiroblue05 06:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't mean to be rude Zaf, but really, is it an image that is in any way impressive? :) Sure, the scene may be relatively impressive (although I haven't got that impression from looking at it..), but the actual execution of the image is equally important, if not more important than the subject matter itself. The rarity of the scene can't compensate for the fact that it really doesn't have anything going for it as a photo - breaking the monotony of a white background, black text is good for the article, but I just don't think it qualifies to be featured for that reason alone! I know it may come off a little hypocritical considering the criticisms of one of my images, but I think you just need to look at the others\ featured photos here and ask yourself whether it really belongs. :) Diliff 07:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it could be a random river and for me the pic is too low quality to be featured. Halibutt 14:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I understand your criticism, though I would say to the low quality, "However, exceptions can always be made for photographs taken under extenuating circumstances" - after all, this isn't an art competition, and I think that it adds to the article, which is why I nominated it. As to the "random river" comment - well, it is the river I say it is. Assume good faith - what reason would I have to lie? Zafiroblue05 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No, you got me wrong. I do believe you that it's the river. The problem is that neither the pic is astonishing, nor does it add too much informative value. You could as well use it in the article on Rio Grande and I doubt anyone would notice it's not right, as there is little detail there. Halibutt 02:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, the quality is off putting. Enochlau 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but breaking the monotonous white background-black text of an article could also be achieved by inserting a big red rectangle, still I wouldn't feature it (Except if it were in the Big red rectangle article ;-) ) --Dschwen 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. bad quality - and the darkness around the edge seems to be like a fade in a TV show. Thelb4 16:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - way out of focus, and the vignetting is terrible - Adrian Pingstone 23:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That could be anywhere. --Yodakii 16:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't find the composition or color stunning and ity could be any river if you look at the pic. Nothing recognizable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose No. Just no. It could be just any random piece of brown water. It doesn't add to the article any more than a picture of a purple frog would, just to provide some colour, and not even nice colour at that. Vanderdecken ℘ζξ 10:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It simply is not a very nice picture. The image is blurred, the quality is low, and it is very dark around the images. Also, to agree with the above stated: it could be any river... --Ironchef8000 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ( − ) Oppose Vanderedecken says it well, but comments by Adrian Pingstone are also shared by me. --Fir0002 10:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry Fir, too many e's in my name. I didn't choose it for ease of typing. You'll see my voting templates are working now. Also, i assume vignetting is the effect of it being a light circle in the middle with dark corners? Then if it is I agree with Adrian Pingstone too. 'I took this picture with a disposable camera on a speeding bus on a bumpy bridge in a third world country which I just might never see again' - Use your noggin, mate! Look at the featured pictures. I admire the photo being as good as it is taken in those conditions, but do you really think it equals the standard of some of those pictures? It's not exactly a work of art. If you'd taken it with a proper camera, possibly on the bank looking down with good lighting and some more interesting subject matter then yes, but this? No. Vanderdecken ℘ζξ 16:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)