Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bench Grinder Brush 1.jpg

Bench Grinder Wire Brush

 * Reason:Detailed, I find it interesting to look at, are not many FP images of tools
 * Articles this image appears in:Bench grinder, Wire brush
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm torn between the extreme detail and the tight crop ("subject cut off").--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Don't mind the crop here as it is functional and well done. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Good quality and EV -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Low enc IMO, because the use of the tool is not shown - some "action", please! ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for cool detail and uniqueness. Good EV because it shows the brush, very important for Wire brush. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't really like this photo, Not that there's anything wrong with it... I guess I just don't like bench grinders. But it is well done, and has high EV. (Giligone (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC))\
 * Oppose - Nearly the entire subject is cut off. In terms of encyclopedic value it fails. Is it run directly through an electric motor? Steam engine? I can't tell. To me it just looks like a wheel of wires. The aesthetics are there the framing needs to be improved though. Victorrocha (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A wire brush is a "wheel of wires". Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The picture is in both articles and to me it has to fit both articles to the point. Still it's cut off whether it be a bench grinder or wire brush. Victorrocha (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's definitely a cool image but I think the extreme close up means the image could be unnecessarily confusing/inaccessible for those without specific experience with the tool. Guest9999 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the primary subject is the wire brush, not the bench grinder. Wider framing is a possibility, but then very little detail of the wire brush itself would be present. Other photos in bench grinder provide the background as to the machine's shape. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree except that there are already two images in the article that are perfectly good representations of wire brushes on their own. I therefore see this image's purpose within the article as being to show a wire brush in a certain context, that of its use with a bench grinder and in this respect I do not think the image (whilst technically and aesthetically impressive) helps the reader understand the particular use of the brush as much as it could. Still good luck with the nomination, it's an impressive image. Guest9999 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. In both cases it illustrates the wire brush, rather than the grinder, and does so sufficiently in my opinion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for excellent detail of the wire brush. This may be a case where applying it to two different articles weakened its chances: it's too cropped to have much EV with respect to bench grinders, which may leave people feeling bad about the image, or confused about what it's trying to show.  But it shows the brush very well, even finds a weird beauty in the mundane.  Fletcher (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support EV and wow. Muhammad (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Only because it's cut-off. I would support so hugely if you could, but then I suppose the DOF wouldn't be quite as good. &mdash; Sunday   | Speak  22:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: I like this picture. The crop may be tight, but it really focusses the eye on what is important.--Tufacave (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support at first glance, I though this would be a boring image, but actually, it was interesting enough to convince me to read the article!  Spencer T♦C 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)