diff --git a/nature/fig/maxw.pdf b/nature/fig/maxw.pdf
index 07c2bd4..81a2b7e 100644
Binary files a/nature/fig/maxw.pdf and b/nature/fig/maxw.pdf differ
diff --git a/nature/main.tex b/nature/main.tex
index 7c2d820..43ebf06 100644
--- a/nature/main.tex
+++ b/nature/main.tex
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ Initial analysis of the buoy data plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:wave} shows that th
 orbitals that correspond to an incident wave direction. These results would indicate that the identified wave is
 essentially an incident wave, with a minor reflected component.
 
-The wavelet power spectrum displayed in Figure~\ref{wavelet} highlights a primary infragravity wave in the signal, with
+The wavelet power spectrum displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet} highlights a primary infragravity wave in the signal, with
 a period of over 30s.
 
 \begin{figure*}
@@ -173,7 +173,16 @@ exhibits a water level over 5m for over 40s.
 \subsection{Incident wave}
 
 According to the criteria proposed by \textcite{dysthe2008}, rogue waves can be defined as waves with an amplitude over
-twice the significant wave height over a given period.
+twice the significant wave height over a given period. The identified wave fits this definition, as its amplitude is
+14.7m, over twice the significant wave height of 6.3m on that day. According to \textcite{dysthe2008}, rogue waves
+often occur from non-linear superposition of smaller waves. This seems to be what we observe on Figure~\ref{fig:wave}.
+
+The wavelet power spectrum shows that a very prominent infragravity component is present, which usually corresponds to
+non-linear interactions of smaller waves. \textcite{dysthe2008} mentions that such waves in coastal waters are often
+the result of refractive focusing. On February 28, 2017, the frequency of rogue waves was found to be of 1 wave per
+1627, which is considerably more than the excedance probability of 1 over 10\textsuperscript4 calculated by
+\textcite{dysthe2008}. Additionnal studies should be conducted to understand focusing and the formation of rogue waves
+in front of the Saint-Jean-de-Luz bay.
 
 \subsection{Reflection analysis}
 
@@ -181,7 +190,12 @@ The 13\% difference between those values highlights the existence of a notable a
 Nonetheless, the gap between the values is still fairly small and the extreme wave identified on February 28, 2017 at
 17:23:08 could still be considered as an incident wave.
 
-\subsection{}
+Unfortunately, the spectrum wave generation method used by SWASH could not reproduce simlar waves to the one observed
+at the buoy. As mentionned by \textcite{dysthe2008}, such rogue waves cannot be deterministicly from the wave spectrum.
+For this reason, this study only allows us to observe the influence of reflection on short waves, while mostly ignoring
+infragravity waves.
+
+\subsection{Wave transformation}
 
 \section{Methods}
 \printbibliography