Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Impact Sprinker Mechanism 2.jpg

Impact Sprinkler Mechanism in Action

 * Reason:After this failed nomination I retook the shot with the water flow adjusted to a point just below where the sprinkler would spin, therefore keeping my camera relatively dry and hopefully fixing the aforementioned sprinkler bias issue by providing an image of one in operation.
 * Articles this image appears in:Impact sprinkler
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * support Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Bravo, I wasn't sure this could be done. From reading the previous nom, I think people were forgetting this thing spins and no doubt vibrates when it's turned on.  But you found a way to shoot it.  While the photo is fantastic, the caption could be more detailed to explain what's going on (noting there was a previous request for a diagram).    I take it the left side nozzle is the "spreader"  nozzle as described in the article?  Fletcher (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Well done, although I'd like a little more space to see the water to the right.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still Support - Supported the first nom, and I still support this. The water adds a cool effect to it as well. ~  ωαdεstεr 16 «talkstalk» 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Quality shot --Fir0002 07:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support amazing. I can really see the "wow" in this image. Nice work. --Kanonkas (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I am going to go against the flow (groan) on this one. Its is much better with the addition of water compared to the old nom, but I think that this limited degree of water flow, whilst making the subject easier to photograph, fails to demonstrate the sprinkler in operation. I like that this new version also shows water coming out of the opposing nozzle, but none of the water is actually sprinkling, its more like an impact trickler :) Noting that it is in Noodle snack's back yard and that he has a number of lens choices, I think an attempt could/should be made to capture the device in full operation with a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action and the spray in full flow. Mfield (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I have to disagree with Mfield. I feel if it showed the spray in full flow, there would be much less emphasis on the sprinkler itself. This image, IMO, depicts the water, but still manages to be the subject.  Spencer T♦C 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice. (: --Ashleyy osaurus 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyy osaurus (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose. I still think this subject is poorly served by a photograph. It requires at least a slow motion video clip, but ideally an animation, to be featurable. Very good photograph, but inferior EV for a subject whose essence lies in its motion. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't it be sprinkler, not sprinker (title of nom and caption)? TerriG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.155.96.6 (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right, a repeatedly copy and pasted typo, fixed now. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Very good picture. As for EV, it gets only weak support since we really need to see this in action to understand what an Impact sprinkler is all about. Unlike an animation or video, however, this still shot allows us to examine the mechanism for more than a moment, so I think it's worthy of being featured. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a high quality image, and it looks pretty cool. However, as Papa Lima Whiskey pointed out, it does very little to clarify how the object works mechanically. As that is the main goal (and problem) of the accompanying article, I'm opposing because I feel it fails to add any real value to the article it appears in. A slow motion animation would do much more to clearly show how it works. Furthermore, the caption is meager at best. Fransw (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support —  Aitias  // discussion 03:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Wronkiew (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)