Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lop Nur and the potash fertilizer production plant 2009.jpg

File:Lop Nur and the potash fertilizer production plant 2009.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2010 at 20:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lop Nur and the potash fertilizer production plant 2009.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lop Nur and the potash fertilizer production plant 2009.jpg

•  Info created by NASA - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler-- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Info This satellite picture shows a part of the former See Lop Nur in Xinjiang, China, with the production plant to produce yearly 1.2 million tons potash fertilizer. This picture in wikimedia commons is in general the only picture with the production plant. Have a look to Google Maps or to other satellite pictures: there is no comparable view. The production plant has the size 10 to 21 km and has the area 164 km². In the building is enought area for Brussels Region (161.4 km²), the capital city of Europa. Or else there is enought area for Manhattan (87.5 km²), Monaco, Vatican City and other famous places all together in this building. - The image shows also parts of the „Big Ear“ and of the former Tarim River-delta. If you want to read much valuable informations about Lop Desert and Lop Nur please read my research reports in the German Wikipedia Wüste Lop Nor and Lop Nor. -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image feels distorted, none of the corners of the buildings are near right angles. Presumeably this is because it is not taken from directly overhead, but it distracts me. --99of9 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I agree with 99of9. The point of reference is a bit straining on the eyes. Scewing (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Info I turned the image 90°. This is a better view for your eyes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment That is a better view, but the distortions remain. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)