I don't agree with the comparison, the landscape and the appearance of the river looks far more "specific" in the Tekeze case, and the Arse VI shows nautical activity which constitute the main interest of the river (I think there are a few declined river scopes as well, quite similar to this one, if you want to have a look). But it is a very subjective impression. I feel that if the river is not visually distinctive enough, maybe a map is more appropriate. I don't have a strong enough opinion to vote on this single candidate, though. --Eusebius (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I see no difference between the Tekeze case and this one. Why do you please think the landscape and the appearance of the river in the Tekeze case looks far more "specific"? If it is because the Tekeze River flows through (for an European) exciting landscape and the Bira River does not (it may be exciting landscape for an African though), that should not matter here I think. And yes, a map may be more appropriate. But there is no such map on Commons so far I know.--Ondřej Žváček (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ondřej Žváček: you could add notes on the file naming the hill and the town on the opposite bank to characterize this view a bit more. --Myrabella (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with respect to the hill. Please note the town is on both banks of the river. The photo is actually taken from a bridge connecting both parts of the town separated by the river.--Ondřej Žváček (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I would recommend to add a second note on the file, something like "Birobidzhan (left bank)" (or right bank, if it is the case :-). Until I read some documentation, I didn't know whether Birobidzhan was a town, a district of a region, so I think that such a note would add valuable information for users as ignorant as me. By the way, I notice that Birobidzhan is the only town mentioned along the course of the river in cs:Bira and ru:Бира (река). I deduce from that that the nominated image is rare and could be considered as valuable, but would gain to be slighty more documented. --Myrabella (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
