Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barrow Offshore Wind Farm 2nd

Barrow Offshore Wind Farm (2nd nom)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 12:40:53 (UTC)

Original – The Barrow Offshore Wind Farm, off Walney Island, near Barrow-in-Furness, England, in the Irish Sea. Completed in 2006, the wind farm has an installed capacity of 90 MW.

Edit 1 Denoised

Reason: Good depiction of the windfarm, striking a good balance between detail and overview with 10 of the 30 turbines visible. Compelling view making the reader want to know more. The previous nomination failed by a very narrow margin of 4.5 of 5 votes, but as consensus can change, I am renominating.
Articles in which this image appears: Barrow Offshore Wind Farm, Irish Sea, Walney Island, List of tallest buildings and structures in Barrow-in-Furness, Barrow-in-Furness
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Andy Dingley

Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 12:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just looks so grainy to me - the sky is almost completely made of pixels, rather than a smooth image. Not quite the standard for FP IMO. gazhiley 14:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no argument about EV but there's no wow. We can barely see the windmills (which, I think, is sort of the idea of the windmill designers, but we're not recognizing their aesthetics here) and there's no sense that any sort of composition was applied to depicting them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense but you seem to place too much importance on wow. On wikipedia we consider EV to have a greater value than wow. --Muhammad(talk) 08:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do "we"? I could show you multiple noms from the last few months that have failed for lack of "wow"... It's a perfectly good reason to oppose - if people see it on the main page, are they gonna look at this picture and be inspired to read the article? Personally I wouldn't... Daniel's reason is perfectly fine... gazhiley 09:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes we do. See the criteria, no 3 --Muhammad(talk) 10:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - from your own link - "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more" ie wow factor... gazhiley 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." --Muhammad(talk) 16:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        So neither of us are wrong then. I choose to base my oppose on the reason I have quoted, you choose to base your support on the reason you quoted. Each to their own... gazhiley 15:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support (original)~~ as per my vote last time; still awaiting that non-destructive noise reduction. --jjron (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edit 1. Good job on the NR. --jjron (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV. Wow is not a requirement but I was wowed by the picture--Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given this has to be taken at sea (or at very high zoom), some technical issues are forgiveable. Alt is probably better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 High EV, subject is depicted as well as possible considering the limitations inherent to depicting an object that is meant to have a small visual form. Cat-five t c ---- 16:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 H. W. Calhoun (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Barrow Offshore wind turbines NR.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]