Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding encyclopaedic value. --ELEKHHT 05:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This strikes me as being decidedly too bright. The original version (see upload history) was probably too dark, but it was taken too far in the opposite direction by the rebalanced. It also feels fuzzy to me, although that could be because the image is a decade old. Places where I'd expect the image to be crisp just aren't all that crisp. Sᴠᴇɴ MᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅWha? 06:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I hafta ask, what's interesting about it? It doesn't really illustrate operation of the machine. Sca (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is too hard to display the machine's operation in a single photo, unless it is shown cut in half. I'm personally torn with this one, because it has nice composition and a beautiful sky, but it is grainy and the increased contrast of the nominated version makes the light look harsh. --Ebertakis (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
