Oppose The scope is too broad for the subject. The photo shows a consequence of gravitation, the kinetics of an object in a uniform gravitational field, but does not illustrate the concept of gravitation itself. With a scope of Falling body, it would clearly qualify. -- Hk kng11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree regarding the scope. The image could just as well illustrate constant acceleration from whatever source field. Actually from the image alone it could be the camera which accelerated - the wonders of relativism. Or, if the ball was charged and placed between large capacitor plates (forming a unifrm electric field) in free space you would have the same type of motion. Ready to reconsider with another scope, cuz' the image is good. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from Gravity to Object in free fall {{{3}}}
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Comment Who says physicists aren't imaginative? Who else but a physicist could suggest that this might be a picture of a charged ball moving in free space between large capacitor plates? ;) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - With the adjustement of scope. Let not forget my physics background... BTW, did you forget to say that g remains (for practical purposes) constant during the fall? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
