Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake[edit]

Animation of the tsunami caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake showing how the tsunami radiated from the entire length of the 1,200 kilometer (750 mi) rupture
AN ALTERNATIVE VERSION without the Malaysia jerk and with an end-pause ~ Veledan • Talk

This animation is already featured on Commons, but I think it's wonderfully informative and belongs here on Wikipedia. I added it to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake in place of a smaller but incomplete version just two days ago — maybe not long enough to judge whether an image has been accepted in most circumstances, but as it happens the article itself was promoted to Featured status that day, and so it has had plenty of attention since.

It was originally a public domain NOAA movie, but has been converted to an animated gif for wikipedia by User:Malu5531 (see the talk page here for evidence of authorship — it isn't made clear anywhere on the commons image page itself). The wave depiction is accurate: the reason the leading fronts sometimes seem to hesitate before hitting the shore is that waves slow down in shallower water. Tsunamis travel fastest in the deeper ocean.

Update: support is for edited version ~ Veledan • Talk 16:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Support. This image is definitely some of wiki's best work! It is informitive, good quality, and very encyclopedic! --Pharaoh Hound 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unequivocal Support for the Edit. Perfect in every way. --Pharaoh Hound 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Informative and intriguing. -- bcasterline • talk 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with suggestion - could the last frame pause for a few moments before restarting the cycle? It's a bit jolting as is. Stevage 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that could well be an improvement. I'm sure one of the gracious and talented contributors who frequent this page and know how to do it would be good enough to give it a go.... *looks hopeful* ~ Veledan • Talk 19:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is excellent! It really deserves to be a FP. Mikeo 20:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice and informative picture, the last frame could use some work though. -- olaboy- 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big tidal wave of support. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 100% informative and encyclopedic. Interesting to see how the island chains slow the wave, and how there actually is a reflection of it from the coast of Sri Lanka and India. However, if someone could fix the slight glitch (the image jitters when the wave starts), it would be even better. --Janke | Talk 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any jitters... What I have found in the past is that some computers stumble over large high frame rate animated gifs. Anyone else? Perhaps analying each frame might help. Or maybe I'm just not perceptive enough. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On my Mac G4 (which should indeed be fast enough), the Malaysian peninsula moves 1 px to the right just as the wave starts. Anyne else seeing that? --Janke | Talk 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does, too. I hadn't noticed before ~ Veledan • Talk 18:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK I have tried to fix in in ImageReady (first time I ever tried using it) and it seems to have worked. I've also put a 1.5 second pause on the last frame. If there are no major flaws I haven't spotted, I'll use it to replace the original nomination. I'll upload it as a text link because of size ~ Veledan • Talk 18:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it was a big earthquake! You could excuse it for jittering around a bit ;). Yeah, I see it now. I assumed you meant the animation jittered in terms of continuity (which it does, but not overly offensively). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Interesting and informative, makes a good FP --Scott 10:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Veledan's edit. Its all been said before. Very useful animation for the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Strong Support Very nice animated .GIF! —Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 19:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very interesting --Aled D 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Incredibly encyclopedic. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My support above is for Veledan's edit, thanks for fixing the problem. --Janke | Talk 08:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per everyone. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There simply is no better way to display this event. Very nice. Staxringold 11:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gif. Is a bit long, but the wait for loading is worth it. I have a few minor issues and would like to know if they can be addressed. Firstly, the waters below Africa have a different shade. Can it be fixed? Furthermore, if one waits for the water front to reach the lower parts of the globe, one can see that they move out of the animated frame. This is a bit distracting only if one starts noticing it as its usually not very apparent as most people tend to concentrate on the active regions not the serene ocean. This animation shows me something I was quite unaware of. It shows that the Tsunami waves bounced back from India and hit Thailand. Then they bounce back again to hit India (though with substantially lower intensity). Did this happen? Did this get mention in the media and does the article mention this? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit reduces the file size by 15%, if that helps. I agree your suggestions might be more pleasing, although I don't think the waters are a different colour below Africa — I reckon that part simply doesn't have the water layer drawn on it (i.e., we are looking at the ocean bottom there). Unfortunately, amending any of the above would mean drawing in the extra detail on 122 frames :-/ I can't do it, but I'll take my hat off to anyone who does! As for the wave deflection, the article does discuss it in interesting detail but it doesn't mention that specific point. If you want to read further, check out the NOAA site itself which discusses how the wave height and velocity was reconstructed from the readings of four radar satellites, all of which were in the right place at the right time purely by chance. It does mention, ..the wave was still large enough after all that elapsed time that it was still bouncing around in the Bay of Bengal ... ~ Veledan • Talk 16:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was expecting that it was missed in the original too and would be difficult to correct. Anyway, its still good enough. Thanks for providing the link. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ocean colour is inconsistent towards Antarctica. Madagascar is too small. Maldives and other islands are invisible. Waves don't seem to hit South Africa which is factually inaccurate and contradicts the associated article. Substandard quality animation. தல போல வருமா 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's called scale. If you want to fit things in some countries are going to be smaller than others. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support edited version. This is brilliant, but one suggestion. To me it is in an illogical place in the article. If we can't have it as the first picture (which I would prefer as it's so good), shouldn't it be in the 'Tsunami' section, not the 'Tectonic Plates' section? --jjron 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Interesting and yes would best be the first image in the article.--Dakota ~ 04:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support edited version. the wub "?!" 17:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very encyclopaedic.--Tnarg 12345 06:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. As all of the above.Froggydarb 08:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent sequence. --BillC 17:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support and I'm usally agaist moving images being fetured pictures --T-rex 19:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very informative and very nice animation. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice animated picture. Its a good display of how the water was affected. --Actown e 15:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • High Support - Great display of the tsunami's effects; adds class to Wikipedia. MosheA 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very nice animated picture. Geoffrey Gibson 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Interesting and informative. Avenue 09:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the original in the article with my edited version Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gif as promised above. It fixes the 1-pixel South Seas twitch in frame 1 as requested by Janke, it has a pause on the end as requested by Stevage, and it reduces the file size 15% with zero loss to the relief of all ~ Veledan • Talk 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:2004_Indonesia_Tsunami_edit.gif Mikeo 15:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

  * (del) (rev) 18:45, 4 May 2005 . . Menphrad (3151894 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
   * (del) (rev) 05:31, 5 January 2005 . . Cantus (1148870 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
   * (del) (rev) 15:50, 1 January 2005 . . Brhaspati (749420 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
   * (del) (rev) 23:17, 30 December 2004 . . Cantus (1148870 bytes) (300px)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&oldid=1133042866"