Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sea foam

Sea foam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 03:42:36 (UTC)

Original - Sea foam is a type of foam created by the agitation of seawater, particularly when it contains higher concentrations of dissolved organic matter (including proteins, lignins, and lipids) derived from sources such as the offshore breakdown of algal blooms. On rare occasions large amounts of sea foam up to several metres thick can accumulate at the coast and constitute a physical hazard to beach users, through concealing large rocks and voids, storm debris as it is seen at the image.

Alt1

Reason: Good quality, adds value to the article
Articles in which this image appears: Sea foam
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: Mbz

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there are strange wedge-shapes extending from the top left and bottom corners, perhaps as an artifact of when you rotated the image. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for noticing.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about the eyecatchingness. Two of the images you removed from the article ([1] and [2]) I find much prettier than this photo, although not as good EV. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of them shows sea foam. It was the only reason I removed them. I could take the same "prettier" pictures every single day. I saw such amount of sea foam only once. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK that may be true that this is a lot of foam, but I oppose due to poor composition (strange ratios; strong, irrelevant focal point), washed out (underexposed?) colours, little sense of scale on the foam, and the generally strange appearance of the foam. Maybe a candidate for VI, but absolutely not up to FP status. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's still something going on on the left edge towards the bottom. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I am sorry about this. Should have seen it myself. It came from the rotation of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support both. Very illustrative, nice quality now -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. It's a little dark, but I appreciate that if it was any lighter, it would probably be overexposed. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per JM. Jujutacular ^talk 03:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I'd be okay with the alt, no real preference between the two. Jujutacular ^talk 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Adam*3. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support either alt has better composition in terms of showing waves as well --Muhammad(talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As the person who did a lot to improve the quality of this article, I'm not terribly happy that this photo has been used to replace several other images. While I don't dispute that the image I contributed was "low quality" (it was after all only a 200dpi scan of the original 35mm print), at least it was more edgy - dynamic and somewhat ambiguous (the enjoyment of the dog as it loped along the water's edge, the half-hidden hazard of the driftwood in the foam) - in a way that echoed themes in the text.

And it's certainly not true of the other two images removed by mbz1 that "none of them shows sea foam". At least they help to illustrate the processes that lead to the formation of sea foams (which I intend to expand on once I get time to dig out the references).

While this image by mbz1 has a certain surreal quality to it, it also has a very static quality due to the separation from the surf zone where the foam was created. Eye-catching perhaps, but not as spectacular as some of the photos in the external links to the Queensland events where the foam was metres-thick.

In short, a welcome addition as part of a gallery of examples, but not to the exclusion of the other images.

I note that the other (close-up) photo currently remaining in this article is also by mbz1. Bahudhara (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other image (close up) by me has been in the article for a very long time.

The two images I replaced show no sea foam. They show the ocean as it looks every single day. it is not an accident that sea foam is also called beach foam. There's no beach foam in the images I removed from the article. This image of mine shows better the development of sea foam because it does show some sea foam and not only a normal surf, but I am still not sure it should be in a short article. About your image being more dynamic, well, maybe, but we're concern more about EV, aren't we? this image of mine is more dynamic because it even shows some sea foam in flight, but still I believe the nominated one has a better EV. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer this user’s alternative picture as it shows the churning sea as well as the foam. This alternative gives the context of what’s happening. TehGrauniad (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. It might have a sense. After all this single image has everything that the two images I removed (because they show no sea foam) + sea foam.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both are excellent, and in my opinion the original meets the 8 criteria, I think that Alt 1 would meet them too if it were used in the article. TehGrauniad (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My support above for both versions --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, mbz1, but you simply cannot say that the images you removed "show no sea foam". The only difference is the quantity and persistence of the foams produced under varying conditions - and I think that it is important to illustrate the contrast, e.g. between normal, lower-energy conditions which produce only small quantities of short-lived foam, and those under which excessive, persistent foam is produced. In the latter case, the foam is potentially toxic to human health if it is derived from the breakdown of a harmful algal bloom, or if there is contamination from polluted urban stormwater runoff, floodwaters, or sewage directly discharged into the ocean. To concentrate purely on the aesthetics is to trivialise the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahudhara (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed those images not because they prevented me from adding mine. I removed them because IMO those image show a usual sea conditions like I see every single day. There are hundreds of images in category Pacific Ocean for example that show the ocean under different conditions, but there are only few images that show sea (beach) foam. I do not mind adding the images I removed back to the article, if you find corresponding sources to describe those, but as it is now, Sea foam is a small article, and I felt as adding one good image of sea foam to it.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the editor who is going to close the nomination All oppose votes were made before the alternative was added.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Alt1, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all editors who supported the image, supported both of them, but opposers did not comment on alternative probably because they like it not enough to support, but enough do not oppose :-)So, it looks like alt 1 should get promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe renom the alt so it can get discussed properly. I agree it's much better than the original, but I'm pretty much neutral on it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment,Aaadddaaammm, but what is the point of renominating it, most of all after you kindly specified that your vote for alt is neutral? IMO it is a proper thing to do to promote alt at this point.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer relisting since the Alt was only up for a few days and needed prompts to get people to vote on it. As far as I can see you only asked supporters to take another look. To be fair surely you should also ask the opposers? --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why you are talking abut Muhammad Mahdi in plural "supporters"? I used to think about Muhammad as only about one user. Are there more than one :-) So, I asked only one supporter, to be exact. One of the opposers user:Bahudhara commented on the nomination after the alt was added, and apparently chosen not to vote on alternative, the other one user:Aaadddaaammm expressed their opinion. Even, if the third one user:Rwxrwxrwx is to oppose, the nomination still should be promoted. But please do as you wish.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike the plural. I only checked the vote that came in after the official vote closing time. --99of9 (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sea foam at Ocean Beach in San Francisco -1 on 3-25-11.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]