Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Forest Crepuscular Rays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Forest Crepuscular Rays

Original
Original
Edit 1
Edit 1
Original 2
Original 2
Reason
Wikipedia already has two beautiful FP for this subject:

and .
The nominated images however represent a different type of the rays, created by the sun the mist and the trees. That's why IMO the nominated images may be considered.

Proposed caption
Crepuscular rays, in atmospheric optics, also known as sun rays or God's rays, are rays of sunlight that appear to radiate from a single point in the sky. These rays stream through gaps in clouds, or trees or other objects. The rays are beams of sunlit air, which are separeted by dark shadowed regions. These shadowed regions could be shadows of clouds, trees or any other object. The image shows that the rays are actually three dimensional shafts of sunlit air. Look for tose rays at misty mornings or evenings.
Articles this image appears in
Crepuscular rays
Creator
Mbz1
  • Support as nominator Mbz1 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course only original image is in the article now. Whatever image gets more positive comments would be placed in the article. If you do not believe that the image should be in the article at all, please say so and it will be removed from the article as soon as the nomination is over. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pretty, but after reading the Crepuscular ray article I'm confused as why you'd think your tree shadows would be crepuscular rays?! The pictures do not add to the article, they actually subtract by picturing someting else by definition. --Dschwen 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Dschwen; the opening line to the article (which you've adapted for your caption) doesn't mention tree shadows at all. I agree it's a similar phenomenon, but it doesn't appear to be quite the same thing. If you can point to something which backs up your point then fine, but otherwise I'll have to go with strong oppose based on it not being encyclopedic of the topic at hand. I will also try to read up on it as well. 99.236.51.219 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign in. Matt Deres 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I did mention the trees in my caption before nominating the images. Thank you.--Mbz1 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for your comments and vote,Dschwen and Matt Deres. I'll try to explain why atmospheric optics experts (I'm not one of them, but I read their books) call the phenomena in the nominated images crepuscular rays. Yes, you are right you see shadow of a tree, but you also see the rays - the beams of ligt in the gaps of the trees. Here how tree shadow looks and it is still crepuscular rays. With cloud crepuscular rays you see shadows of the clouds. With trees vrepuscular rays you see the shadows of the trees. Here how famous atmospheric optic expert Andy Young explained to me fog shadows when I asked him about this :
    "These fascinating shadows look odd since humans are not used to seeing shadows in three dimensions. The thin fog was just dense enough to be illuminated by the light that passed through the gaps in a structure or in a tree. As a result, the path of an object shadow through the "fog" appears darkened. In a sense, these shadow lanes are similar to crepuscular rays, which are caused by cloud shadows, but here, they're caused by an object shadows." So in other words there is no difference in the rays we see in gaps of the clouds, or in gaps of trees or other objects. Crepuscular rays article also talks about shadow in few places. IMO it is rather article that does not give the complete pictures of crepuscular rays than the image does not belong to the article. I would have corrected the article, but with my English I'd better not. When I said that I would remove image from the article, if community decides so, I did not mean that the image is not of crepuscular rays (it is), I meant that maybe you find there are too many images in the article. IMO image adds value to the article by showing a different kind of crepuscular rays. I'd also like to mention that there are few images at Commons in category crepuscular rays with trees here. They were taken by different people at the different time, but all of them ended up in crepuscula rays category (the right one IMO). Should we remobe them too? I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a reliable source, if one wants to know more about atmospheric optics in general and crepuscular rays in particular.Please feel free to ask me more questions. I'd like also to ask Matt Deres to share with us what he found on the subject, please.Thank you.--Mbz1 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • FWIW I think Mbz1 might be right that these are a type of crepuscular rays, and it could well improve the article having this info and the pictures. Having said which, I would find it hard to justify having 3 FPs for a 450 word article, especially when, from what I can see, that's the only thing any of them illustrate. --jjron 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comment, jjron. If we had this conversation the day before yesterday, I would have tend to agree with you that three FP for such a short article could be one too many. It is why I said in the image introduction that Wikipedia already has two FP for the subject. However after reading the comments from Dschwen and Matt Deres and getting not just oppose, but a strong oppose for the reason the image "not being encyclopedic of the topic at hand",I've started to believe that the image should be considered for FP, if for nothing else, at least for the educational purpose. I've been interested it atmospheric optics for few years and,when I look at a phenomena, I know what I'm looking at most of the times. I believed so called "forest crepuscular rays" or "tree crepuscular rays" are very well known phenomena. I see it is not the case.I've improved the caption of the image and tried to explain the image better. Thank you. --Mbz1 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually I was almost thinking the same thing :-). It still seems overkill, I wonder if we really need both the others featured since they basically show the same thing. BTW, also kudos to you for identifying that there were already two FPs of this in your nom. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you, Jiron.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice picture Mbz1, Why not try nominating it at commons? H92110 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. MER-C, does no votes at all count as promoted? :) --ffroth 06:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "no votes" I've got at least one vote - strong oppose ;)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Quorum is 4 in favour. MER-C 09:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination for the lack of interest. As Dschwen commented on another candidate: "Lack of votes = lack of interest = not an interesting picture = not FP material". Thank you all for looking and for the comments and for the sole vote the image got.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think this may be worth a renom once it's verified that this belongs in the Crepuscular rays article; I suspect that lengthy discussion and those doubts may have put off many voters. This would be especially true if you limited it to just what you consider the best picture to nominate at first instead of three to help avoid confusion, and if there weren't already those two featured. --jjron (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, jjron.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)