Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hot metalwork

Metal, heated by a blacksmith, becomes molten glowing.
Metal, heated by a blacksmith, becomes molten glowing.

This image adds to its article by demonstrating how metal changes its physical properties when it is heated. It is also pleasing to the eye.

The image appears in the metal article. It was created by User:Fir0002.

  • Nominate and support. - David McCabe 08:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - yeah, it's an ok image, but nothing stunning. It also doesn't really show how the physical properties change - the molten peg is exactly the same shape as the others. Stevage 09:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm neutral for now, but exactly how does this illustrate molten iron? The metal isn't even molten. If something is molten it has been melted, and melting is defined as the state change from solid to liquid, like here. This piece is glowing red hot, but still solid. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems noisey to me. -Ravedave 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Stevage. The metal is not molten at all, just glowing. It also is not the best illustration for a blacksmiths' work. As Stevage pointed out the shape of the peg hasn't changed. I'd rather see it being worked. If it is just about the glowing, including the heat source in the pic would be an improvement. --Dschwen 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a fairly good example of black body radiation (a better example here), but not molten, per Vanderdecken - Jack (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per others. Its also significantly out of focus/motion blurred. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above, Diliff. --Tewy 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above, the blur and the business of the photo though are my main reasons for opposing. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Incandescence would be a better place for this picture, but the article already has enough pictures. --Turanyuksel 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Low depth of focus, and uninteresting subject. HighInBC 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lovely shot, but unfortunately misplaced focal point and shallow DoF make it problematic. Would support a "better" version of this shot on incandescence. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Mikeo 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)