Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/King Philip shipwreck at Ocean Beach

King Philip shipwreck at Ocean Beach edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2011 at 02:19:28 (UTC)

Original – The image depicts the bow of King Philip shipwreck at Ocean Beach, San Francisco as it was seen April 8,2011. The shipwreck that is usually completely buried by the sand makes it reappearance around every 20 years after the sand gets shifted by big winter storms. The shipwreck is seen only in an extremely low tide. A little bit more than a month after the nominated image was photographed, the sand shifted once again revealing the best view of the stern of the shipwreck while hiding the bow.

Alt 1

Reason: Encyclopedic, high quality, a rare occurrence.
Articles in which this image appears: Ships lost in San Francisco and King Philip shipwreck
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: mbz1

Support as nominator --Broccolo (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the wreck is seen only in an extremely low tide, which means that time window of taking this image is very small, and occurs not every day. That's why it was impossible to take this image during sunset/sunrise time for a better lighting.
Support I think the lighting is nice anyway. It has good EV for the article and good technical quality. The person and the birds (sanderlings?) add a sense of scale. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image isn't even used in the article on the wreck. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I replaced the top image of the article about the wreck with the nominated image. The nominated image shows more of the wreck than the old image does, and they both were taken by Mbz1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GXK147 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 November 2011
Question Why did you choose this one and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Philip_stern_at_Ocena_Beach.jpg? Pine^talk 09:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why the nominator decided to nominate this particular image, but I personally like it better too. I believe it has a better composition. Maybe both images should be renominated as a set? GXK147 (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per JJ Harrison. Clegs (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, support alt 1. Alt shows the outline of the ship better so it has better EV. Pine^talk 09:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Alts of edits is messy enough... but an alt that is a completely different picture? As a "set"?? Let's keep things simple and orderly. One picture per nomination please. I could simply remove the additional picture and the vote it got, but I would rather the posters did it themselves. JBarta (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We consider alternate pictures of the same subject routinely. I see no problem with that. And it would have been inappropriate for you to remove someone else's comment. Chick Bowen 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is precedent for alts here, particularly if they might address some reviewer concern or other. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with you, Chick Bowen. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. Seems goofy to me, but if that's an accepted way of doing things around here and everyone's good with it, then carry on... JBarta (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm inclined to agree with JBarta, for what it's worth, that slinging lots of pics into a nom and hoping one sticks is most certainly not a good way forward. These two images show slightly different things and may well have EV for slightly different reasons. (As an aside, strong oppose promotion as a set- these aren't a set, they're two pictures of the same thing. A "set" would be a picture of it from all four sides, or three pictures of three related wrecks, or something akin.) J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am new here, and I was not sure what is allowed and not allowed for a set nominations, and thank you very much for explaining it to me so nicely.GXK147 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, that's a really clumsy way to display the two images in the article on the ship itself- that needs sorting out. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. The second (blue) image was shoehorned in a few days ago above the first. I removed the addition. Quite possibly the image has a place in the article, but not as it was. JBarta (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the record, the two pictures are of different things. One's the front and one's the back of the wreck. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        However, having both in the same picture is possible. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support both -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both - The second is by far the better angle, and is the one i was looking to support. However the depth of focus is too shallow, the lighting is horrible, and there are many distractions in the image that i would prefer not to be there. We have to be able to do better for this in my opinion. JFitch (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment F8 was used to take the image, and there is expression "f/8 And Be There". So F8 is not too shallow, and not shallow at all. This view of the wreck lasted for an hour or so, and then it was gone for good, buried by the sand once again maybe for another 20 years? So the lighting could not have been chosen, and as you see the day was foggy. Distractions? Do you mean birds, or people or waves? "We have to be able to do better"? Sure, there is no limit for taking better images.--GXK147 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]