Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edwards Air Force Base seen from the air

Edwards Air Force Base seen from the air edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 11:33:33 (UTC)

Original - Large overhead photo of Edwards Air Force Base, located near Rogers Dry Lake

Reason: Large overhead photo of the base with many buildings and aircraft visible on the ground, lead image of the article, strong EV for the article
Articles in which this image appears: Edwards Air Force Base and Airport
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Others
Creator: U.S. Air Force

Support as nominator --Pine^talk 11:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to require a bit of a crop to remove the borders. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped. JBarta (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Irrefutable EV for the base itself, decent picture to understand airport layout. High resolution, PD, clear lines, good contrast. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not stimulate my interest because it's a really ugly photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not stunning photography. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all these pictures of birds are? Personally I find them a little boring. It seems to me the real objection to this image is what the image portrays... an overhead shot of an air force base. I can't imagine how such a shot could be made glamorous, or stunning, or whatever. But for what it is... it seems to be a fine image. Another thing to consider... "stunning" images of flowers and birds and landmarks are littered all over this place. How many are around that show such an installation from the air and in such fine detail? JBarta (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've been on this base numerous times and I live about 10 miles from it; believe me, it shows the base exactly as it is. Is it an ugly photo, or a photo of an ugly place? For me, it's the latter. Edwards is in a dry. ugly part of the desert and barely anything but yucca trees and creosote brush grow here. It's not a stunning area at all, and for me the photo captures the ugliness and lack of stunningness just fine. Having knowledge of the base, I can identify the compass rose painted on the lakebed, the main base and Dryden Research Center, and a few other things, but it's missing the auxiliary base, the painted runways on the lakebed are unclear or not included, the compass is faint, and we can't see any of Edwards, California. which is as much part of the base as anything else. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read Wikipedia's featured picture criteria, you will find no mention of the words "stunning" or "ugly". In fact, the reasons given for opposing this image (largely subjective aesthetics) are not even mentioned in the criteria, except to say that "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing." And, if you read the rest of the criteria, it's hard to make the case that this image doesn't qualify nicely on most points. Just sayin... JBarta (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have read the criteria. I was responding to others saying it was ugly and not stunning. I think it captures the ugliness and not-stunningness of the area. The Antelope Valley is what it is. That is not my issue with the photo. The image isn't up to standards in other ways

It is missing major parts of the base, including Edwards community, the auxiliary airbase and the runways on Rogers lake. Not to mention completely leaving off Rosamond Lake. It appears to be tilted, either the runway should have been parallel with the edge of the image or it should have been rotated to the left by a large amount so the runway and the strip by the hangers and bases were in the centre of the picture.

In your nomination statement you make a point of saying that many buildings and aircraft are visible, but there's no detail to them. Most people would be hard pressed to identify the planes.

The image is outdated. In 2008 a runway was installed to the left of the large one. Unless being presented as an historic photograph, which would be odd since its from 2007, it is misrepresentative and has lost its encyclopedic value as showing the base as it is today. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]