Comment, what do you mean? How is a demonstration supposed to look like? Wasn't your typical demonstration anyway, this is an overview of the area where the demonstration took place, people had set up tents and just sat around, how is that not apparent? Also, this is from very early during the start of the demonstration, a rather significant moment during the period. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In a political demonstration we are supposed to see people marching, yelling, waving or holding posters with sloogans. Nothing of that is obvious in this picture, less yet the fact that this is a demonstration (a specific one) against the government. It could well be a political party or assembly. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, this wasn't your typical demonstration, and again, tents were set up and people just camped there for months (a "sit-in"), so why should a picture of it conform to some standard which doesn't even apply to the demonstration itself? Of course people also marched (yet that was just while getting to this particular place), but this image shows a panorama of the entire area where the demonstration took place, so it is better at showing the sheer size of the demonstration than a picture of a few random demonstrators, and is also more representative of how this demonstration was actually pulled off (not by marching, but by sitting). I suggest you read the article the image is used in to get a better idea about how the demonstration occurred. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the nominators comments makes perfect sense. I added the used in links for quick navigation to some relevant article where the image is used. I think the image is the best at illustrating the protests, which lasted for an extended period of time. Other criteria met as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
