Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/surfer

A California Surfer

 * Reason:Surfing is a very popular activity and I do not believe we have any FP for this kind of sport.
 * Proposed caption: A California surfer. The surfer is performing a gash, or very sharp turn. Santa Cruz and the surrounding Northern California coastline is a popular surfing destination; however, the year-round low temperature of the ocean in that region (averaging 57ºF/14ºC) necessitates the use of wetsuits.
 * Articles this image appears in:Surfing;Santa Cruz, California
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support either as nominator Mbz1 17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've tried and failed to get FP status for few other images of surfers. I hope you like these ones better. Thanks.--Mbz1 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either Great clarity, no major technical problems that I can see. Good job. CillaИ &diams; XC 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either No reason not to. – sgeureka t•c 19:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Orig 2 - better composition, less of a blown wave, and closer view of the surfer. and somehow the guys hair isn't wet in the first image - which seems crazy and un-enc to me. Too bad the second surfer's tongue isn't out though. de Bivort 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose until a better caption is written. I had overlooked this earlier. Tell us about the image please. de Bivort 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the caption - please include information such as the season, location, and more details about the surf maneuver. Info like "the surfer is wearing a wet suit because the pacific ocean averages blah blah degrees" is much better than tourist pamphlet boilerplate like "here one could ski and surf in the same day". de Bivort 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good caption. de Bivort 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good caption. de Bivort 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

talk 16:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original 2 on composition and blown reasons and the nice 3-D effect you get with the surfboard. Original 1 needs a crop, I think, and it's fine, but I like 2 better. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original 2 - there's even enough "wow" in the thumbnail. --Janke | Talk 07:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support orig The first is better due to the lighting and movement is best. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 12:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support both. Spikebrennan 15:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The water looks cool but the detail on the surfer's face is bad, and this is totally nonencyclopedic.. you can't see what he's doing at all -- ⁪ffroth 16:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original 2 Better than the first version in almost every respect. Good depiction of the sport, typical stance and trajectory, making it good & encyclopedic. A shame you had to spam the Surfing page in order to make this nom; can I respectfully suggest you remove some of very similar images from the page? --mikaul
 * Done. I've removed 2 other images, which were posted by myself.--Mbz1 17:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support both I like the images, but honestly the caption is a huge missed opportunity. I don't know surfing, but it seems like something the surfers are doing in the image could be used as a basis to write a better caption than "a California surfer." The article has a list of terms a mile long; doesn't one of those describe what's going on in the picture? Please, something - anything - more extensive than the three-word caption it's got now. SingCal 02:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given plenty of time there has been no change to the caption. Oppose until something happens. SingCal 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was out for few days, but haven't you noticed I've changed the caption before you posted your last comment? If you believe the caption is still not good, I would be grateful for any help I could get. Thank you.--Mbz1 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With the caption as it now stands... Support Original 2. SingCal 06:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both - no "wow"-effect, poor light, too much contrast. There is some encylopaedic value but even the value would've been better if the photo had been taken closer to the surfer and from a lower angle. --Aqwis 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both - as per Aqwis. It's not remarkable. It may be a simple informative shot of a popular activity, but it really isn't that pretty.--Talionis (Shout me · Stalk me) 08:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both we can do better than this. The pose in the alternate is uninspiring, and the first pic has problems with the waves. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. good but not great. The lighting and pose/waves are not ideal, and we can do better. Calliopejen1 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to thank everybody for the comments and votes. No matter, if an image is to pass or not to pass, I'm glad many people have expressed their thoughts about the images. My special thanks to SingCal and Debivort for helping me with the caption. I also agree with the ones, who said that we could do better (there's no limit for the better).--Mbz1 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)