Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Impact Sprinker Mechanism.jpg

Impact Sprinker Mechanism

 * Reason:Wikipedia has huge systemic bias against sprinkler images. Technicals are imo good and it adds value to the article.
 * Articles this image appears in:Impact sprinkler
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as far as the image goes I would rather have an a image of one actually operating for enc. purposes, although that would undoubtedly be difficult to photograph well. On a side note - the caption - I would dispute the vague (and unreferenced) claim that it is the most widely recognized type of sprinkler. There are billions of pop up lawn sprinklers installed in lawns all over the US that are not of this design so the claim is shaky by that measure alone for en:WP. That claim is tagged as citation needed in the totally unreferenced article. Mfield (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, guess who tagged it as citation needed. As you might imagine I am not too keen on getting my camera particularly close to a running sprinkler Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, hoisted with your own petard. You should be able to keep a safe enough distance at 400mm :) Mfield (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wandered down with my 400mm. For the framing above I get approximately 5 meters away, around 1/3rd the range of this particular sprinkler. I am going to have to justify the purchase of an 800mm f5.6L or a waterproof enclosure I'm afraid... Noodle snacks (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This is an example where an annotated SVG would be preferable, as it allows cut-aways and transparency where needed to show all features and explain their working; another alternative would be an animation (is that what you meant, Mfield?). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This is a HQ photo of a common sprinkler and meets all the criteria. EV is reasonable and an SVG could be nice, but nothing replaces a photo of the actual thing. Caption could use some work per Mfield. Wouldn't want to add to the "systemic bias" against sprinklers on WP! :-) ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The image, as is, is very high quality. However, it fails as a representative image of the subject.  Sprinklers should be sprinkling water.  In its current state, the spring is shut and shown from only one side.  Would be better to have a view in action, or an animation. Chicago god (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just performed a fair amount of clean up on the article, so some of the comments above may not make sense to later voters as I added some referencing and toned down or competely removed the uncited claims that sounded like they came from someone's (maybe Rain Bird's) marketing material. For the sake of clarity, if you want to see what the article looked like when at the time of the original nom then see this revision. Mfield (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose High quality, but the lack of sprinkling water as well as only showing the head of the sprinkler reduces enc, imo.  Spencer MerryChristmas! 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Helpful for understanding how a sprinkler looks and works. Narayanese (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

--Wronkiew (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)