Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sea Foam

Sea Foam

Original - When w:Plankton crushes ashore, it dies and disintegrates creating w:foam like bubbles, which are left at w:tide pools floor after the w:ocean retreats. The bubbles display all the same properties as w:soap bubbles do, displaying typical w:interference w:colors , except they last much longer than soap bubbles do.The w:organic material of the w:Plankton , that lowers the surface tension of the water (as soap does) and preserves the film is responsible for these w:colors. It might be also interesting to note how the appearance of my reflection is chanhing from bubble to bubble. The image was taken at w:Fitzgerald Marine Reserve

.

Alt 1

Reason

Have you ever wondered, where sea foam comes from. I have not until I noticed this beautiful, colored sea foam at California tide pools. I believe the image has high encyclopedia and educational values.

Articles this image appears in

Plankton;Reflection;Interference;Foam

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• DisclosureThe image was added to Reflection and Interference articles today and I am not sure it will be allowed to stay there, but I hope it will because it shows a natural interference and interesting reflection. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I don't feel it shows the foam in context enough - I like the colors etc. but I'd prefer to see for example some rocks/sand/ too, something for scale. With this image you could equally be looking at bubbles in a kitchen sink. Mfield (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Your oppose is absolutely fair. I added alternative image, which shows less foam, but rocks, algae and shells to prove that the image was not taken in a sink. I also added alt 1 to other version at the original description page because I still like the original better. Maybe it will do it for you. May I please also mention that one could see some algae at the upper right corner of the original image? May I please also mention that the bubbles of sea foam differed a lot in their sizes? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Interesting art shot, but not enough encyclopedic value. (Yes, there is an encyclopedic explanation, but neither of the images are particularly useful to further that explanation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuja (talk • contribs) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• As you could see the caption of the image provides a very detailed explanation about the subject. The question is how to make Wikipedia readers to read the caption. IMO the more interesting the shot is the more Wikipedia readers would be interested in reading what is this interesting (artistry) shot is about. May I please ask you to take your time and to explain to me what kind of image of the same subject would have been useful to further the encyclopedic explanation of seafoam. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, the question is not how to get readers to read the caption. The question is what encyclopedic information that image itself contains. Because you stated the image will probably be removed from reflection and interference, because the way that the green is interference is completely not addressed in the interference article, and this isn't an exceptional shot of reflection, as it's just a silhouette of you, I was evaluating the encyclopedic nature of this image for plankton. There isn't even a wikipedia article on sea foam (it's a redirect to a particular confection). If someone started an article on sea foam, and an image of sea foam that included the sea (or at least the beach) in the background, was taken from down on the ground, didn't include any (or any distracting) reflections of the photographer), and was of high technical quality, then that image on that hypothetical article might be a featured picture. - Enuja (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Thinking about it, the different image I describe would be encyclopedic for a soild section about sea foam in the plankton article. - Enuja (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've never stated the image will probably be removed from reflection and interference. I've stated just the opposite. Like with all my nominations I feel this way: I saw the phenomena, I took an image of it, I know what it is and I did my best to share my knoledge with the others, but failed, which is just fine with me. Thanks.I withdraw my nomination. --22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are you serious?!?!?! I was just about to nominate this!!! Support! -76.252.61.105 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't seem encyclopedically applicable to any of the articles listed as hosting it. de Bivort 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you for the vote, de Bivort. (I really mean it, I like when my images are voted for or against does mot matter), but may I please ask you, if you noticed that the nomination was withdrawn :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about encyclopedic value of the image. In reflection article it is the only images, which gives an introduction to Specular reflection at a curved surface. In Interference it is the only image which shows how Interference may occure in Nature,in Plankton article it is the only image, which shows how dead plankton looks, in Foam article it is the only image, which explains in details where seafoam comes from. Yes, IMO this image has lots of encyclopedic and educational values. I withdrawn my nomination not because I agreed with the opposers (I do not), but simply because I am very, very tiered from all this FP process. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted

• Withdrawn. Julia\^talk 19:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)