Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fresnel lens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fresnel lens[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2012 at 17:50:10 (UTC)

Original – Lighthouse Fresnel lens, on display at the Point Arena Lighthouse Museum, Point Arena Lighthouse, Mendocino County, California.
Reason
High quality, good EV
Articles in which this image appears
Fresnel lens
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator
Frank Schulenburg
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is that a railing at the bottom of the image? SpencerT♦C 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support So use dry technical terms.... That is so cool! Also, a dramatic and interesting illustration of the article with historical significance. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the picture in the gallery has a better view; showing the entire subject. JKadavoor Jee 06:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one also shows the entire subject... And it has a far better lighting. Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the bottom (railing?) is a bit disturbing to me. JKadavoor Jee 13:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the horizontal angle of this version better. --Pine 23:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mediran talk|contribs 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I do like the lighting and angle of this image better than the other picture of the same lens in the gallery; however, like JKadavoor, the railing is a little distracting to me and I think it would be a little better if it were cropped out. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there are a lot of these things in museums. Going after the one in the london science museum with a tilt shift lens might produce a better result.©Geni 09:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The subject is interesting and useful, and the image is technically high quality, but the composition and lighting is low quality. -Fjozk (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons above, I think we can do better. — raekyt 16:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a worthwhile picture as far as illustrating the subject is concerned, but for me it has insufficient artistic quality to raise it to "featured picture" status. 86.160.84.230 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]