Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Emerald pool in yellowstone.jpg

Image:Emerald pool in yellowstone.jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (✍) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Beatifull place, but the image is not sharp at all. --Sfu (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it is a deep (27 feet deep) pool filled with the hot water. How sharp you expect it to look?The most important part of the image is the colors of the pool. The image really illustrates how the pool got its name. Here are few nice samples from Flickr [1]; [2]. They are hardly any sharper than my image and they do not reaaly show the deep green color of the pool.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose The colors are great, but I agree with Sfu, a 3.1 mpx picture of a still object should be a little sharper, especially since the pool takes only half of the picture. --S23678 (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to low technical quality: Blurred at full resolution. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not all images should be sharp; some should be simply beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Simply, they should be sharp and beautiful. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 but do not agree with the opposers

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative 1, not featured

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per the points I mentioned above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not all images should be sharp; some should be simply beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Simply, they should be sharp and beautiful. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 but do not agree with the opposers

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)