Support as nominatorAlwynloh (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is bad. The stars are very blurred, the whole sky looks fake, and it's very noisy. Doesn't really illustrate anything either. Sorry, it's pretty as a thumbnail, but not an FP. Clegs (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Looks somewhat like a background out of Star Trek, sorry, just not up to quality standards. Dengero (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - horrific noise, blurry, lighting is bad, not to mention the heavy JPG artifacting. Sorry, not a chance. Try WP:PPR before FPC next time. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per clegs, a pretty thumbnail, but the 'big image' quality isn't there. I like the idea, and an picture of a similar setting could be really neat, but especially damning is that the focus is on the tree thereby leaving the arches and sky to look like hell. The tree is by far the least interesting thing in the picture.D-rew (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I like the contrast and the look of it a lot... but it's not an encyclopedic image--but it is a really nifty one. grenグレン 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low technical quality as mentioned above. Also, it doesn't illustrate the National Park.--Svetovid (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
