Comment I have to agree. This is a high quality picture of a high quality microphone, but i think that is not special enough to nominate as FP candidate. I would nominate it as a quality picture on the spot. Greetings --SvonHalenbach13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My english is not too good, so I can't phrase it better. I didn't find exactly what I mean, but I hope, these examples can give you a clue: [1], [2]. norro18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between those pictures and the picture in question. The picture in question is the absolute best depiction of the microphone itself. It would be suitable for use in a technical article. The pictures you linked are very noisy and have distracting backgrounds. I just don't see how they could be used. If they were to identify the act of performing, then the focus on the microphone is very strange, and if they are actually supposed to just identify the microphone, well, they add too many other distractions. --Cyde Weys19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]