Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Big wave breaking

Big wave breaking

Original - Big wave is breaking in Santa Cruz, California

Alt 1 - Big wave is breaking in Santa Cruz, California

not for voting Crop illustrating both surfers at full resolution.

Reason: Nice wave with a bonus (surfer) who provides a scale.
Articles this image appears in: Wind wave
Creator: Mbz1

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of reflexions arising from an ongoing discussion in the talk page images: do we care enough to draw up guidelines?. i find that it will be hard to proof verifiability of the statement that the scene is happening in Santa Cruz, California. Does the image lose some value if that is removed? I guess it doesn't. franklin.vp 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the main point of that discussion revolves around old images because of their historical value. Our guidelines here are to assume good faith for user-generated content. upstate NYer 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. If that is the case then I find that a (solvable) weakness of Wikipedia (or the guidelines). franklin.vp 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - That discussion has absolutely nothing to do with this image... J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a big statement! (absolutely?) Did you read it? franklin.vp 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the info about the location because IMO it is one of the best places in Bay Area to see big waves and surfers together. Some readers, who live nearby, might be interested to go there and to see the scene themselves.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. User mikaul pointed me to the corresponding WP[1]. I am still studying it but it seems to be that you are allowed to do that. Please continue with the review of the nomination disregarding the above. franklin.vp 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I am causing problems but I just want to get this right in my mind. Also, I think, it is not going to harm the nomination in any way. I read in the WPolicy, above, this (Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.) The caption of the image claims that it is a picture in Santa Cruz, California, which is a non-descriptive one. As I understand from the text in the link above, that claim would be an unpublished eyewitness account and they explicitly say it shouldn't be added to articles. franklin.vp 01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then adding a geolocation to the images are also "unpublished eyewitness accounts"?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination because I believe it is not the right place to discuss such things--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No please, Mila, don't do that. I got convinced. Follow the link to the talk page to see how. So sorry for giving you troubles. We can put here one of those fancy boxes that hides a side discussion. franklin.vp 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry I overreacted as usually :) Let's proceed.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt1, Oppose original - Alt1 has more drama going for it. The original is a good shot, it just doesn't draw me in nearly as much as the Alt1 image. Cacophony (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose both~~ Support - I don't think the quality is there, size and sharpness is below average for a highly replaceable image such as this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The images are not highly replaceable. The waves like these are rare, the waves with surfers even more so. If they are "highly replaceable" please offer to our attention a high resolution, high quality and a free license replacement, and I will be the first one to support it. Besides the quality of the nominated images is well above the average. Of course surfer is small, but the image is of a wave, not of a surfer. --Mbz1 (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By highly replaceable I mean that, although rouge waves and other abnormal wave conditions may not be a daily thing, images like this are not impossible to obtain. Another issue is that the size, isn't the size for that camera 3,888 x 2,592, why are they scaled down so much? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it fail on size criteria? The first one is in fact double the minimum requirements, the other even bigger. --jjron (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Raeky. I consider your mention about the size highly unfair. Haven't you supported this nomination? About the rarety of the waves. I live 10 minutes walk from the ocean. I see the ocean from my bedroom window. The last time I saw the waves like these ones were about two years ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept the waves might be rare, but your pictures focus isn't just the wave but the little guy riding the wave as well, and at the lower resolution hes not very identifiable as more than a blur. Thats where my size/focus issue comes into play, the little guy. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The surfer provides a great scale for the waves. It is all but impossible to show details of the surfer together with huge waves. I believe that, if one could count fingers on a surfer's hand and see his mouth open, to call him "a blur" is not fair, but that's OK. I have no more questions about your vote. Everything is clear.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Support since it's just used in Wind wave, and as such is very good picture to illustrate a breaking large wave, I just have issues with it's EV for surfing due to the size of the surfer. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose both Reaky has a point about repeatability, I see these waves every year several times a year when idiotic surfers go to catch giant waves in Miami during hurricanes. Now those are action shots. Trying to get permission to publish alt from that. As for the surfer, he is a blur because he is wet, likely because of the fact he is surrounded by water. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken any pictures so far? May I see them please? Could you please link me to other people's high resolution, free images of the same kind of the waves? Abd BTW your mention about "idiotic surfers " show that you have no idea what you're talking about. There was a competition that day there, so the surfers were not "idiotic". At least as much is certain :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the wording there. I meant the people surfing during hurricanes in Miami were the idiots. A few get killed every bad season or so. Also, "hurricane parties" tend to kill a few people off once and a while. As for my pictures, I have a few good ones, yes, but I don't publish them, just blow them up to full size, print them, and mount them on my wall. And for the record, 90% of the images I take I delete because they aren't crisp enough. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would accept the size, maybe, for the wave, but when you throw a sufer on it the focus goes not just to the wave, but also the surfer. This particular guy/gal is wearing all black, which isn't that stand-out and hes small in the frame and there isn't much resolution to fix that. I included a crop of both surfers at the same resolution they are in the bigger file, as you can see both are small, no detail and one is even blown out. Thats why I'm opposing. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both told me that the images are easy to replace. I asked you few times to link me to a high resolution, free image that could replace the nominated image. So far I saw no samples of that. I withdraw my nomination not because the images are bad, and not because they are easy to replace, but because I've got enough of unfair opposes for the time being.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're great pictures of the waves, I'm just not convinced the size of the image and composition works great with the surfer. All *I* mean that it's replaceable is that these waves are not one-time events or it's not a historic image, it _could_ be replaced. Sure it may only happen a few times a year or more rarer, but it's not impossible to replace. That's all I mean. I'll change my support to Support for use in Wind wave, since thats where it's at and it's an excellent picture of a wave. I would not support it for use in any surfing article though due to the already mentioned size reasons of the guy. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course English my second language, but I believed I was telling all the time the nominated pictures are of the waves and not of the surfers, and the surfers are the bonus, who provide the scale for the waves.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to reiterate here that uploading original photographs or graphics is not a condition for participation here (for anybody that might read this and is unfamiliar with FPC). Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's not part of the FP rules, due to convention questioning why it's not the full resolution, specifically when a detail of the photograph would benefit from larger resolution (the little guy in this one) is perfectly in line with a FP review process. Just because a picture meets the minimum size requirements doesn't mean there can be no discussion on the size of the image. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure what your comment has to do with mine - maybe you didn't mean to indent? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Raeky. That's a discussion on the detail contained in the image, not the size of the image per se. As stated above there is no issue on the size of these images, but depending on what they're illustrating you could question the detail on the subject (e.g., if it was a photo of the surfer). However your original comment earlier was specifically questioning why the image size was not the same as the max image size produced by the camera. An entirely different point as I hope you can appreciate, and not relevant. --jjron (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm aware of the guidelines for FP, but if you read above I was asking why not upload a larger version when in this instance it would help the value of the image due to the surfer. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator

Not promoted --Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 15:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]