- Reason
- Striking picture taken of the "Carved Bridge" at Cassiobury Park
- Articles this image appears in
- Cassiobury Park
- Creator
- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions)
- Support as nominator -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 13:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Please have a look at WP:FP. No clear subject, date stamp on the picture. -- Dschwen 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- The subject is the bridge. --
Tyw7 (
Talk •
Contributions)
14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- But how do we know this is a bridge? It could just be a railing close to the edge of a river... Gazhiley ( talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- The subject is the bridge. --
Tyw7 (
Talk •
Contributions)
14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Poor general quality: large areas out of focus, noisy image, unpleasant lighting. The subject has low encyclopedic value to the article that it appears in. The date stamp is unnecessary and distracting, and the image is not geocoded. Apologies for being so strongly critical, but since you have also posted this image to the Peer Review page, I think you might appreciate the feedback. NotFromUtrecht ( talk) 14:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- What is geocoded? -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 14:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Tyw7, the point of Peer review is that you take something from the opinions of users who take time to comment. Jjron left you an extensive message on your talk page explaining the issues with the images. -- Childzy ¤ Talk 15:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks like this was taken with a poor-quality camera. -- mcshadypl T C 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose and Speedy Close Clearly does not meet FP criteria. Makeemlighter ( talk) 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose and Speedy Close as well... Gazhiley ( talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted J Milburn ( talk) 09:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Striking picture taken of the "Carved Bridge" at Cassiobury Park
- Articles this image appears in
- Cassiobury Park
- Creator
- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions)
- Support as nominator -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 13:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Please have a look at WP:FP. No clear subject, date stamp on the picture. -- Dschwen 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- The subject is the bridge. --
Tyw7 (
Talk •
Contributions)
14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- But how do we know this is a bridge? It could just be a railing close to the edge of a river... Gazhiley ( talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- The subject is the bridge. --
Tyw7 (
Talk •
Contributions)
14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Poor general quality: large areas out of focus, noisy image, unpleasant lighting. The subject has low encyclopedic value to the article that it appears in. The date stamp is unnecessary and distracting, and the image is not geocoded. Apologies for being so strongly critical, but since you have also posted this image to the Peer Review page, I think you might appreciate the feedback. NotFromUtrecht ( talk) 14:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- What is geocoded? -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 14:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Tyw7, the point of Peer review is that you take something from the opinions of users who take time to comment. Jjron left you an extensive message on your talk page explaining the issues with the images. -- Childzy ¤ Talk 15:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks like this was taken with a poor-quality camera. -- mcshadypl T C 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose and Speedy Close Clearly does not meet FP criteria. Makeemlighter ( talk) 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose and Speedy Close as well... Gazhiley ( talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted J Milburn ( talk) 09:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)