Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm

San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm

 * Reason:High resolution, high quality stitched image detailing the layout of a large wind farm - a well known California landmark
 * Articles this image appears in:San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm, Wind farm, Wind power in the United States
 * Creator:Mfield


 * Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment These are the windmills Durova was asking about in my Joshua Tree pano nom. For those that will notice, the small area of softness in the lower center is caused by heat rising off the mountain ridge just below the shot. This image is stitched from 39 shots at 300mm. Mfield (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very good enc, but none of the visual appeal as in the Joshua pic. As a thumb, it actually shows almost nothing, that unfortunately lowers it's value in articles, IMO. --Janke | Talk 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A well-known feature of the Southern California landscape used in films etc. for decades (including Less Than Zero (film)). For those who are less familiar, this large wind energy farm is adjacent to the main freeway heading east into the Mojave Desert from Los Angeles (which is a major artery for transportation to the Palm Springs resort communities, Las Vegas, and other eastward destinations).  I would have supported for encyclopedic merit before the current energy crisis, and in light of events these last couple of years its ev has increased as an idea ahead of its time.  Not a bad panorama, either.  Durova Charge! 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Impressive, but I have to agree with Janke in saying that its difficult to see the windmills in the thumb.  Spencer T♦C 14:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Impressive detail - but as mentioned at the thumbnail level there's not much to see. I suppose that's the sacrifice you've got to make so show the wind farm in full scope so it's not too much of a problem --Abdominator (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I can't really think of a more effective way of capturing the sheer size of this facility.  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with Janke, the thumb is just not focused enough to provide any EV. Also, the gray haze really distracts from the image... Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support While the thumb provides little EV, the full size image provides great value illustrating the scope of the facility and the variety of wind mills. Very interesting with subtle but powerful wow factor. --Leivick (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can't even interpret this without a magnifying glass. Dull and unremarkable.  Oscar (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. You do know your computer comes equipped with an easy to use magnifying glass? :) WP is lacking in this kind of aerial high detail photography. I know opinions are subjective but you really find this dull and unremarkable? Alternative energy is after all a key component one of the most pressing issues facing mankind. Mfield (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the fact that it shows Alternative energy should have any bearing on the matter.
 * Yes, I regard the photo, to be unremarkable. Nothing personal, mind you.  It's just that I'm looking for WOW (along with the technical requirements of course) and this is dull brown.  Oscar (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Indeed it shows detail in full size, but IMO it conveys not much info to readers. Still an interesting subject. --Base64 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, Weak Support. --Base64 (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, the thumbnail isn't the greatest but seeing a full size view looking down on a windfarm was incredibly useful for me in visualizing it especially with the ability to see each windmill. Ground level photos fails to be nearly this informative about layout. gren グレン 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)