Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fresnel lens

Fresnel lens

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

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? Spencer^T♦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. — raeky t 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]