Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Evolution of a tornado

Evolution of a tornado

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2018 at 00:55:24 (UTC)

Original – Evolution of a tornado, a composite of 8 images of a tornado as it moves across the landscape

Reason

well done composite of 8 images showing the evolution of a single tornado as it moved across the landscape

Articles in which this image appears

Tornado, tornadogenesis, tornado outbreak sequence of May 22–26, 2016

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

JasonWeingart

• Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Nice. Bammesk (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment It is only one of many images in the tornado article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, but it is one of only two that has the time aspect to it, and it is the better of the two. MER-C 10:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously spectacular and a well-known image in meteorological circles, but I think it's important to get some temporal context—that is, which side is the "start" of the sequence? Without knowing that, we lose most of the EV for tornadogenesis. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, it's pretty obvious it's from left to right... What bothers me most, is that at #2 the funnel touches down, but not #3 and #4... Would want an explanation for that in the caption - is such "indecision" common? Also, the caption says 8 images, but I count only to 7... --Janke | Talk 06:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's so obvious. I'm a meteorologist and I had to briefly stop and consider whether the left side represented the "roping out" dissipation stage. I think we're both agreed though that the image does not take full advantage of its potential EV and leaves lots of questions unanswered. The caption could be a wealth of information about supercell evolution, tornado shapes, the process used in the creation of the image... instead we get little more than is self-evident from the picture itself. I will note that according to the photographer, the 8th image is of the updraft part of the storm (see the upper-left part of the sky). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Ah yes I was just going to link to the Commons FPC from earlier this year, where he makes several comments adding context. I don't think I looked too closely at the video he links to at the time. If I had to make a guess now, I'd say that it might not have actually moved left-to-right in smooth succession, and that the different stages may have been laid out as such to show the sequence, when it may have occurred in more wobbly back-and-forth fashion (in which case an image like this would not be possible). That said, because of the editing of the video it's not entirely clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Watching the video segment 00:50 to 00:59, it is clear that the sequence is from left to right. Bammesk (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC) . . . Freezing the frames shows minute details where ground meets sky. Those details establish a reference for location. Timing of individual frames establishes a reference for time. Bammesk (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose – Perhaps I'm overly fastidious, but I wonder if some readers might interpret the image – which carries no time-sequence markings – as a photo of one huge, many-tailed storm – ?? Sca (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose per Sca. I think that a better caption and clearer separation of the images are important. The image and caption could be edited to address these concerns, and if the edits were done then I would happily consider changing to support. --Pine^✉ 19:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)