Oppose IMO, totally fails criterion 3. In no way can I see that this is a turbine. The section (where the action occurs) is not visible on the image. Lycaon (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't think that it's necessary or possible for a picture to show to everyone what kind of machine it is. This is a very special machine. A biologist would not see what it is but a mechanical engineer. A biologist would see more on a picture of a creature than an engineer and would say this is a ... where an engineer must read the explanation. IMHO. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a scientist (like us biologists) doesn't see the general layout of a machine, what more will a layman understand the image. You just proofed the failure of criterion 3 yourself! Lycaon (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the opposers, that it fails criterion 3, as it does not illustrate the concept of the scope very well. For me, a much more schematic illustration, like Image:Turbines impulse v reaction.png (left hand side) is much better at illustrating the scope. As a minimum I expect to be able to clearly see a cup-shaped rotor, which is a characteristic of an impulse turbine, and I do not see that design element clearly in the image. Perhaps with a modified scope giving the impulse turbine in a historic angle? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
