Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor Schematic

Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor Schematic

Reason: I found this by accident while looking through nuclear reactor pages here. I was stunned by the quality of the image, and it occurred to me that if this image was eye catching to me it may be worthy of an FP star, so here I am with my find. This is an .svg image, so size is not an issue. I have omitted the details of the nuclear reaction since all nuclear reactors are more or less the same, but if it becomes an issue I will be happy to add such information to the caption. Note that the image here is for a theoretical reactor currently under development for commercial use; however, this should not be a problem insofar as OR is concerned, as soviet Alpha-class submarines used a variant of the reactor shown here for propulsion and electric consumption. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: Generation IV reactor, Lead cooled fast reactor
Creator: Original image created by Commons User Lcolson; vectored image (used here) created by Commons User Beao

Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good. I'd ask for the title on the top left corner to be removed and provide the raster source [1] for verification. The holes could also have a realistic 3D coloration, which shouldn't be hard to do. The gradient inside the generator could also use an invert in coloration so that it would fade into white in the middle and extend to black on the edges. Also, de-capitalize the second words of the labels. --Zoo Fari 06:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I lack the technical competence to do that, but I will pass along the suggestions to Beao on your behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am flattered :). Fixed the text. --Beao 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any success on my other suggestions? Let me know if you need help. --Zoo Fari 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being someone with expertise in the subject, I'm even having a hard time understanding what's going on in the recuperator and compressors. Also, a very thorough description is needed for me to support this. A simple "This is an LFR" isn't good enough; it must describe what's going on. upstate NYer 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could also use a start marker. Perhaps a large arrow like the one coming out from the generator. --Zoo Fari 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
  - Well, there isn't exactly a starting point in these systems, really. The only place I would consider a start would be the pump that forces the coolant to flow. And now that I say that, no pump is mentioned here or at the source; liquid can't flow without a pump. I'm concerned that DOE may be withholding design information for the sake of national security, which wouldn't be surprising and should be expected, but it leaves us with a very sub-par diagram, IMO. upstate NYer 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "liquid can't flow without a pump"? Time3000 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a nuclear reactor; the starting point is the nuclear reaction. ? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Not an area where I claim expertise, but the source is reliable and this is faithful to the source. Durova³⁹¹ 19:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, though I've taken the liberty of changing the lines from the labels so they don't stop at the reactor casing. Time3000 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose due to blatant inaccuracies discussed above. upstate NYer 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The article is poorly developed with some limited understanding of the point in the R&D cycle for these investigative reactors, and limited explanation of the process. The image is nice, though. I would nominate the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor first, though, easier to understand, better sourcing, even if the image isn't as appealing. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]