FWIW, I used Peterson's and Nat Geo's field guides to look this one up.
NG has a drawing of an immature PW that looks very much like your bird.
Photographs of birds -- at websites, or wherever -- can be misleading,
due to lighting issues and other stuff outside the photographer's control.
I think field guides illustrated with drawings are a much better way of
id'ing birds than photographs -- but that's just me, of course.
I'm inclined to concur.
I happen to have a book printed locally in 1976 that seems to cover
local avian fauna pretty well; used the drawings in there some time ago
to identify an Eurasian coot (Fulica atra L.), a species I don't think
I've ever seen before. Aside of the author's "nope, not going to delve
into that in this book" stance regarding Passeriformes, and the changes
in fauna since the book was published due to climate change, it feels
like a good enough id guide.
I've contributed several photographs of birds to Commons in the past,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Gyft_Xelz
but I generally photograph "on the go", without stopping for long in
any particular place, regardless of how conductive it might be to bird
watching. As such, I've mostly been doing landscape photography for
years. (Not to mention accumulating several years worth of unuploaded
backlog due to other commitments.)
