Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shallow water waves 250px.gif

Shallow water waves

Output from a shallow water equation model of water in a bathtub. The water experiences 5 splashes which generate surface gravity waves that propagate away from the splash locations and reflect off of the bathtub walls. (smaller version)

Bigger version

Reason: Beautiful picture, well illustrating the scientific idea.
Articles this image appears in: shallow water equations
Creator: user:DanCopsey

Support as nominator — Michael Hardy 02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone figure out what this is not displaying correctly? I've spent too much time already wrestling with ths software on this one. Michael Hardy 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason animated gifs sometimes want to be their original size. ??? Fixed, though. --TotoBaggins 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- Very interesting and super-enc for waves, which are so deep and subtle. --TotoBaggins 22:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oppose~~ - I just realized that there's a significantly bigger and better version of this item here, so I'm withdrawing my support. I'd definitely vote for the bigger one, though. --TotoBaggins 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support larger version --TotoBaggins 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the larger version is to get voted on, should the link to the image be changed in this section? Does that require some sort of consensus? I would guess it would be necessary then to notify everyone who's opined on this to allow them to edit their opinions accordingly. Also I suppose that any opinion that was actually about the smaller version would have to be idenitified as being about the smaller version so as not to misrepresent people's views. Is there some standard procedure for such a situation? Michael Hardy 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be voted on. Made it a bit more obvious. We'll probably leave this one open for a few extra days to gather consensus, as one of the oppose !votes no longer counts. MER-C 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an explanation how the image was created on the description page. Like this its just a pretty anim with little enc. --Dschwen 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How the picture was created? You mean the software that was used? I don't think that part's important. If you mean the mathematical equations that describe the motion, those are explicit in the article. Michael Hardy 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's so hard about writing This animation was created by solving the blah blah equations using matlab and creating a series of output images with the blah command. The animated gif was created using blurp. That's just like providing EXIF data in pictures. So people can learn by example. --Dschwen 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We really need this kind of animations to illustrate physical phenomena not easy to explain in words. But the bathtub is too small for these wavelenghts, as well as the picture itself, resulting in a cluttered and confusing animation. Also, the point of view is not very favourable, a little more above the tub would be better. Finally, eveything happens too quickly, including the friction damping. A rest period should be inserted before the animation re-start - Alvesgaspar 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Larger version availiable. Duh. Maddiekate 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger version added. I've removed the pictures from this nom, as downloading 10 MB of stuff each time someone views this nom or the FPC main page is silly. MER-C 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this was relisted - the nom didn't achieve a positive consensus within a week, and therefore shouldn't be promoted right? I don't even see 4 supports for this version or the alt, so it shouldn't it be closed? Debivort 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concern here is that nobody expressed opinion on the bigger version - the oppose for this reason doesn't count, making it rather borderline. I tend to leave noms like this open for a few more days to see if discussion has stagnated. And the relisting was an experiment of mine. MER-C 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support larger version. ShadowHalo 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted , although the larger version might be nominated seperately in a little while. Raven4x4x 08:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll renominate it now. I think this needs a fresh nomination to draw more comment. Raven4x4x 14:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]