Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wind turbine

Wind turbine

Reason: I believe this meets all criteria as it is a good quality photograph with lots of colour and a background and foreground that do not distract the viewer. It is a lovely composition and very appealing to the eye. The wind turbine is in perfect focus. Overall there is nothing wrong with this image and it has great encyclopedic value as it shows turbine design plainly and simply, there isn't a mass of turbines to try and look at, just one which makes it easy for the viewer. I see no reason why this should fail --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed caption: An example of a modern wind turbine, this 3 bladed turbine is the classic design for wind turbines as they are easy to assemble, small and produce good power outage
Articles this image appears in: Wind power, Wind turbine design
Creator: Wagner Christian

Support as nominator Childzy ¤ Talk 10:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since it's supposed to illustrate the turbine, I'd like to see a more detailed close-up shot, or a shot of a wind farm.--Svetovid 12:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what do you gain by showing a closer image? By nature wind turbines are simple looking so that they do not detract too much from the environment. On your second point i would like to add that it is not an image detailing the article Wind farm but Wind turbine so how by showing many of them does it better show the workings of a Wind turbine --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think a closer image need is needed --St.daniel ^Talk 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's a lovely picture (except for the foreground grass stalk), but for enc. value I'd want the base to not be cut off, and also to have something else in the shot to demonstrate the magnificent scale of this machine. --Sean 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, clear pic of the turbine, which for me need not be any more "full length" than it already is, but there's nothing else there to make it either compelling, enc or feature-worthy. I love the sky but the shot angle and very central composition adds no drama or interest; the final nail is the scale issue TotoBaggins refers to. You have to assume Martian scientists might view this and go away thinking wind turbines are only three times as tall as a sheaf of barley. mikaul^talk 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Simply too uninteresting for FP. It's vaguely enc since, hey it does show the wind turbine, but come on it's just a plastic tube with fins on top. Utterly unremarkable --⁪froth^t 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the one marked "Scale. not for voting" that one have lots of drama. Why isn't that one nominated?Moravice 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Uninteresting composition. Also the lack of detail kils enc value. Alvesgaspar 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TotoBaggins. I also prefer the comparison pic; if it weren't for the JPEG artifacts around the fins and some minor clarity issues, I'd pony that one up for FPC... Matt Deres 21:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - the turbine itself looks really good. However, I don't like the foreground much - it's a bit harsh and jarring - and there's really not much context to give a scale. A building or something like in the other photo would really help. Stevage 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One reason: lack of scale. The additional picture to show scale does shock the uninitiated (moi) with the size of the turbine, but it (the scale-demonstrating picture) is not attractive in any way to FP standards. The nominee is beautiful, but for all I would know, this thing could be just 5m in height. We need a beautiful picture that somehow shows scale. Unschool 07:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]