Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Firebox on a steam train

Firebox on a steam train

 * Reason:This is a very difficult subject to photograph - both because they're fairly rare and hard to get access to. I think the pic came out quite well.
 * Articles this image appears in:Firebox
 * Creator:Raul654


 * Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I like the contrast between the dull metal chamber and the bright coals inside. Good EV and enough interesting aspects to deserve FP status. -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support' Good photo of a technical aspect of steam engines -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vehement Oppose - speedy close You've got the terminology (and article) completely wrong - this is not a "combustion chamber"! On a steam engine, this is called a firebox - I know, because I build steam loco miniatures... Also, the chamber - er, the firebox, is never that hot - it's just the coals that glow hot, The walls of the firebox have water on the other side, and never reach a temp of much over 500 F. PS: Certain loco fireboxes do have combustion chambers, but this picture doesn't show that. I removed the image from the article. (You can add it to firebox, and then re-nominate, if you wish.) --Janke | Talk 08:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The file should be renamed as well. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-09-08 13:08Z
 * I've renamed the picture, and moved the featured pic nom accordingly. As to the temperature, the 3,500 F number came straight from the engineer who gave me the tour wherein I took the picture, so I'm pretty sure that's reliable. And I can say that the engine was *substantially* hotter than any oven I've ever cooked with - I was standing 8 feet back and it felt like I was right in front of a 300 degree oven. With that said, however, I've decided to err on the side of caution and remove it. Raul654 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, better now, with the terminology fixed. Yes, it's hot, but that's mainly because you're looking at some 10 square feet of glowing coals! Been there, done that - so it's not that hard to get access to... I have a few similar shots - too lazy to look them up (among some 20,000 digital pix) and see if they're any better, so I'll vote Neutral for the time being... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support very nice and unusual for WP:FPC. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good picture, high encyclopedic value. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Image page and caption ought to give some sense of scale, since nothing in the image does so.  How big is the aperture and how big is the firebox?  Spikebrennan (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The aperture is a bit larger than the head of the shovel - about a foot in diameter. If I had to guess, based on what I saw of the disassembled train in the shop, the firebox is probably about 5 or 10 feet deep and 2 or 3 feet wide. Raul654 (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral It's difficult to get a sense of context and scale. A wider shot would be better. Also it's not all that high quality. —Pengo 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Hell yea! Its about time some bureaucrats do some actual work featuring stuff! :) &mdash; Sunday  Scribe  19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I know it's going to be difficult to get something exposed right with the range of light conditions, but there's just too much direct sunlight on the metal surrounding the box resulting in overexposure, and the fire itself isn't particularly clear. Perhaps you could reshoot in lower light conditions? Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting shot of a time gone by. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)