Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fresnel lens

Fresnel lens
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:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
 * Creator:Frank Schulenburg


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is that a railing at the bottom of the image?  Spencer T♦ C 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment I think the picture in the gallery has a better view; showing the entire subject.  JKadavoor    Jee  06:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This one also shows the entire subject... And it has a far better lighting. Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But the bottom (railing?) is a bit disturbing to me.  JKadavoor    Jee  13:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I like the horizontal angle of this version better. --Pine✉ 23:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Mediran  talk 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 19:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose per reasons above, I think we can do better. — raeky  t  16:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)