Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fort Charles cannon

Fort Charles cannon

This picture I took of a cannon at Fort Charles, Nevis while I was on vacation is both highly historical in the area, and a good picture. The only flaw I see with it is that it may be a little dark, which can be fixed.

• nominate and Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small; out of focus; motion blur; no sense of context; poor composition; weeds in foreground distracting; not especially illustrative of a cannon or of Fort Charles; no useful information given in caption. --Yummifruitbat 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is blurred and out of focus, but I dont know about the weeds being "distracting". But nevertheless, the Fort Charles article is severely lacking. -- AJ24 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Can't somebody sharpen it? 2) Why does the quality of an article affect whether the picture is an FP or not? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a matter of
      chat} 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Re your question 2 please read the first sentence at the top of this page: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." If the article has no content, as in this case, what content is it illustrating and what's the point of attracting readers to the article? --jjron 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too small, blurry, and lacking context.
  chat} 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Per Yummifruitbat. --Tewy 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per everything Yummifruitbat said. And Howcheng was right about the sharpening. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]