Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zippers

Zippers

 * Reason:Already a featured image on Wikimedia Commons, this juxtaposes two types of zipper in detail. Good textures and resolution.
 * Articles this image appears in:Zipper
 * Creator:Rabensteiner


 * Support as nominator Durova Charge! 00:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Where'd you find some non-YKK zippers? Dr. e  X  treme  13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose diego_pmc (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * weak support Not a whole lot of EV here; a diagram showing how the zipper works would be a lot more valuable, I think. Matt Deres (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those diagrams are 80px (FP here and on Commons) and 80px. Durova removed it from the Zipper article and added this one. Not cool. Cacophony (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - removing an existing FP from an article to substitute with a new candidate is not cool. --Janke | Talk 06:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's featured? Apologies in that case.  I'm a member of the textile arts wikiproject and hated to view that article because the animation gives me a headache.  (Converting animations to links here because otherwise I'd have to stop revisiting this nomination).  Durova Charge! 08:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're a member of every wikiproject -_-;; I agree that the animation is wayy too busy for the image at the top- my suggestion is to put this nom at the top of the article and put the animation down at the bottom (which isn't far for that article) D\=&lt; (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Teehee, I'll blindfold myself and try. Durova Charge! 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional support once this picture finds a stable home in an article. (as of this posting, it isn't in any).  Spikebrennan (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having thought about this for a couple of days (after the surprise of seeing it nominated) I'm now going on more than a gut reaction to oppose. OK, reasons? No 'wow', bland colouring, really weird arrangement of having two zippers arranged like that and no information on why they are so, ordinary composition, especially the way the two zippers feed out the top of the photo differently, and finally, limited encyclopaedic value (what does it tell me about zippers that I can't see just looking at one? It doesn't show how they link together, etc). --jjron (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IT does have good resolution, and the photography work is good, but what point does this picture have? It's just two zippers. Good quality isn't the only featured picture criteria. And it a little bright, too. --  Ketchup Krew   Heinz 57!  21:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per quality concerns, M.K. (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure of the EV.  crassic ![ talk ] 05:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)