In high quality, your wall appears like it might look really nice. I wouldn't take the rejection personally though. This site is a lot different than most art sites, because it is a skinning site. The walls normally have to meet another standard, and that standard being whether or not it would make a good theme/skin wallpaper. So, a beautiful scenic wallpaper may not meet that standard to whoever moderated it. Now, if you were to create icons, windowblind and such, it would prove that your wall was a theme wallpaper. I believe this is the standard that is sought. It is nothing personal against your wallpaper.

Heck, I was told that the author of the Silver Surfer Wallpaper that was made to fit my windowblind skin, probably wouldn't be accepted here. And, that wall was created from scratch, by a professional game developer working for Eidos. http://www.deviantart.com/view/3399463/

I just hope that I don't get flamed for my comment again.

If you want to know why something was rejected why not e-mail a moderator? Nothing good ever comes of airing your laundry in public. The phrase "...completely random" is insulting all the moderators here - great way to start.

So, on to the photo... I saw this in the upload queue, when I came back later it had gone - moderated. Had it not gone I would have moderated it my self. The reason? There are a few. Overall it's bland. Composition is confused, there appears to be no focal point in the picture it makes the eye feel uncomfortable. There's little contrast, that, combined with poor colour saturation, leaves the picture looking 'washed out'. The colour balance is cool making the scene stark and uninviting. Nothing about this picture makes me want to put it on my desktop.

As for what is or isn't a good wallpaper - there are as many opinions as wallpapers. Usually the creator has the highest...