Oppose It is a very nice shot, and it has exactly the minimum required resolution. However, the tops of the two tallest buildings look washed out, and, for stationary images city views, I expect much higher resolution (which is often accomplished with multi-shot panoramas, although that would be hard with the reflecting water). In this case, I really want to see more detail in those two buildings (what's on top of them?), of the buildings in the distance and the in red bridge. Great image, contributes well to the article, but I don't think it is featured picture quality. - Enuja (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is very noisy. Enuja had great points, as well. crassic![talk] 02:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Beautiful image, but just too small. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Small and noisy. 8thstar 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a good scene and well taken but there is something wrong with the quality. As a general point, rivers are "living" things and an opportunity is missed to show some life and add value (another pic of the river in the article about the town has sailing boats in it). Motmit (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Motmit makes a very good point, and besides the fact that this fails size requirements. SpencerT♦C 22:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
