Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Earwax on swab

Earwax on swab


I believe that it is a striking and somewhat unusual illustration. It was created by Wikimedian Greg Maxwell specifically for the purpose of illustrating Earwax where it is currently in use.


 * Nominate and support. - Gmaxwell 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting, high res photo, but it really doesn't display earwax all that well. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What would your suggestion be? I consulted with several other editors before shooting this series and took a large number of photographs. The swab photos were the clear winner, since the swab itself gives the picture context and avoids visual confusion. For an example see the UV earwax on swab image on the article, without the swab clearly visable (And without comparison to the normal light image) the image appears somewhat confusing.--Gmaxwell 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there can be a featured PHOTOGRAPH of earwax other than maybe (ewwww) a comparison of different people's waxes with some explanation for whatever differences you see. Much more likely I could see a featured picture that's more like a diagram of wax generation, wax structure, something like that. WP:WIAFP which you yourself referenced requires the pic be pleasing to the eye and be WP's best work. While this is fantastic work technically and definetly should remain in the article, a high res photo of a cotton swab is not a featured picture. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, delightfully disgusting! —Keenan Pepper 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Technically excellent, but as per Staxringold the earwax is not prominent. Also it does not look that impressive to me. HighInBC 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So what would be a featured picture of earwax to you? Would it have to be a lone lump of earwax on a plain white surface? I'm not sure I understand your objections. —Keenan Pepper 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My objection to this picture is mostly based on lack of impressivness(it is just a waxy q-tip I see those on my bathroom floor), I personally don't see how a picture of earwax can be an FP, unless mabye a nice picture inside of an ear(ya, that would be cool). HighInBC 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OpposeI don't think this picture represents one of the finest pictures on the internet--an image can be technically great but I don't think that the subject matter is FP quality (I'll reconsider if someone can show me that an FP is only based on technical merit, rather than subject matter.Joniscool98 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no rule (for lack of a better word that I can think of) on the What is a featured picture page that says subject matter should decied whether or not a picture should become featured. The third rule may be considered as judging on subject matter, but I think it just means that it should be of high technical quality and unique in some way. A high quality photograph of earwax is definetly unique in my books. :) Imaninjapirate 04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. looks gooey. Henry A-W 03:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support"... The picture should make a reader want to know more." I guess people would want to know more about earwax when they see this pic on the Main Page. And the pic is technically great. And I think we need this sort of pic. We love grand landscape pics, but we also want to see something really different... at least from time to time.--K.C. Tang 03:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Doesn't that person know that you should never use Q-tips to clean out ears! I had to learn that the hard way (barely being able to hear out of my right ear for several days after using a q-tip). But seriously, technically everything is great in this picture. Imaninjapirate 04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well they are perfectly safe to use to clean the outer ear, just don't go poking around inside! :) --Gmaxwell 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Staxringold. This is excellent quality, but I keep thinking, what is it telling me about earwax? Re what would I support - perhaps earwax in situ, though I'm not sure exactly how one would go about getting a great photo of it. --jjron 12:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Illustrates the subject as well as possible - Adrian Pingstone 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I'm sorry, Greg... I've given this a day to see if my initial reaction to the image would fade... but no matter how many times I've looked at it I still can't get over the feeling that this isn't something that should be featured or a front-page image. I just can't reconcile it to criteria 3 or (especially) 7 in the featured picture criteria. To be honest, at first I thought this was a joke nom, in part due to the caption describing the earwax as "wet-type," which I find unintentionally humorous. Also, the earwax depicted here is far wetter than any I have ever seen in real life, looking more like oxidized honey than earwax.  -- Moondigger 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have dry-type earwax? I'd describe this as 'oxidized honey' in comparison to my earwax, but I have dry-type. The image is representative of wet-type earwax. I find your interpretation of (7) odd when comparing your position on this image (which has been described to me as 'intriguing' and 'utterly disgusting but cool') to your views on your own images. --Gmaxwell 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, mine is wet-type, according to the description in the earwax article. (i.e., It's not "grey and flaky.") It's just not actually as wet as the earwax in the picture appears to be. Regarding the disparity between my opinion on this image and on my own images w/r/t criterion #7. It says images should be "pleasing to the eye" and "make the reader want to know more," amongst other things. I find most of my images (and most of yours, for the record) pleasing to the eye. I don't find this particular image pleasing to the eye -- unlike the person who found it disgusting but cool, I just find it mildly disgusting. It doesn't make me want to know more; I feel like I already know too much after looking at it. Again, I'm sorry -- I know it's a subjective thing, and I did give it some time to see if my initial reaction would fade. But it hasn't. FWIW, I've changed my comment to a weak oppose. But it would be a lie for me to say I'm neutral on it. -- Moondigger 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shows what I get for not reading it and going by memory, I thought criteria 7 was purely "The picture should make a reader want to know more"... which isn't a criteria that I believe clearly applies to many of our pictures, including many of mine and yours. Your commentary on the wetness of this wet type would appear to me to demonstrate conclusively that the image caused you to go learn more. ;) --Gmaxwell 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think that no image of a "disgusting" subject should ever be FP, then? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't make a blanket statement to that effect. There might be a disgusting (to be fair, I said "mildly disgusting") picture I would support for featured status, but this one isn't it.  Greg, it wasn't the picture that sent me to the article to read about wet-type vs. dry-type; it was the followup discussion here.  Though I don't deny that others might react differently to the image, it definitely doesn't make me want to learn more. -- Moondigger 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Such an image does not help illustrate a concept or improve the quality of WIkipedia by contributing to its content. A picture of a common substance, of which everyone is familiar, runs contrary to the purpose of featured pictures, regardless of any technical qualities. Jeeb 21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ...whyever not? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are pictures of rasberries and sunsets, everyone is familair with them...-Ravedave 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then maybe they shouldn't be FPs.  Read the ongoing discussion on FP criteria on the talk page if you want to go down that road.  If you like the picture, then just vote for it and state your reasons. Jeeb 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. High resolution, sharpnes and good lighting. Might not be an appetizer but shows earwax well. Please do not crop to make earwax more prominent, the cotton swab provides context. --Dschwen 01:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Technically a good photo, made me go EWW! then read the article so its gets a support from me. -Ravedave 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh and I can't wait to see what Fir002 and Janke have to say about this :)-Ravedave 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cynical Opinion The "awe-inspiring" landscape pics and the "important" historical pics are almost always hailed, when it comes to pics that concern the little things in our everyday life, which are after all experiences we all share, we despise, we condemn, we call them jokes...--K.C. Tang 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly per Moondigger. I would not be proud having this in our FP collection: a photo of what looks like someone who stuck a Q tip in their ear, swirled it around, and took a photo of it. Yes, I would prefer a landscape any day. I don't think this adds a lot to Wikipedia, and I don't think it shows what makes us unique - go to rotten.com if you want to be disgusted. Stevage 09:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It adds somewhat to the article, but not nearly as much as a comparison between wet- and dry-type would. I'm not sure that's enough to oppose it, but it's just enough to give me pause about supporting it. The "ick" factor isn't an issue, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Staxringold. --Hetar 18:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm trying my best to base my vote not on the "ick factor", but on the criteria of what a featured picture is. The two criteria in debate are 3 and 7. I believe that 3 is fulfilled because I cannot see a better way to photograph earwax, besides in the ear itself (though that is difficult, because earwax isn't on the outside). As for criteria 7, I believe that this image has inspired so much discussion that it must be interesting, and at least for me, it makes me want to read more (but as Moondigger said, it's a subjective thing. I think the only way to decide is by tallying the votes to see how many users think that this image meets criteria 7). -- Tewy  19:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well shot & serves the article well.  (And adds some nice variety to FPs.)  --Davepape 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Sharp, good lighting, couldn't really think of a way to improve the representation of the subject. --Fir0002 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm going to oppose, not because of the reasons stated above, but because it's just plain boring. It's not very interesting, and while great pictures can be made with everyday objects as subjects, this one is just dull. --Dark Kubrick 10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose It has high resolution but the image do is not nice. Imagine enter to wikipedia for first time and see that image in the Main Page. No way. --Neo139 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, mainly because I am really irked that some people think FP's have to be of fluffy kittens or pretty landscapes ;-) Seriously though, nice technical quality, and if it wasn't interesting, there wouldn't be so many people discussing it. mstroeck 22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing it, we're voting on it. --Dark Kubrick 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per all oppose, especially Jeeb and Steveage. Boring, gross, and not at all unique---anyone with a camera could take a picture of their earwax if they had the desire to do so. --Nebular110 23:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * no, not everybody can do that, at least not everybody can produce a pic of earwax of this quality.--K.C. Tang 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I agre, probably 99.95% of people couldn't repro this shot with the current camera they have. SEe my terrible attempt at a closeup: Image:Activated_Carbon.jpg. -Ravedave 04:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, Nebular. mstroeck 10:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dante Alighieri. Nice work, but doesn't aid understanding much. -- Avenue 10:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support - gross, but very clear. -- Thelb 4 11:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Outriggr 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a lot of everyday objects that are FPs. Some examples: Image:Moon merged small.jpg, Image:Glasses 800 edit.png, Image:Monopoly Game.jpg, Image:Salad platter.jpg, Image:American Eskimo Dog.jpg, Image:Fog&Sunny.png, Image:Close up yellow rose.jpg, Image:Hazelnuts.jpg, Image:Anvil shaped cumulus panorama edit crop.jpg, and Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif (just scrolling through Featured pictures visible, to Featured pictures visible) My point is that images of "everyday objects" can be made FP material by portraying their subject in the best way. -- Tewy  00:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is pointless and stupid. that's about as interesting as watching paint dry. get rid of it off this list, right now!!! 150.101.54.34 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I really like this image. When I saw it before on the list for Wikimania awards, I immediately went and read our article on earwax. It's somewhat gross, because of the subject and typical Western POV, but it's a great shot, the swab gives context, looks like earwax to me, and it's also something which it's difficult to get a great, free, encyclopedic picture of, because it's not a lucrative subject to take pictures of. I think we should support pictures which draw in readers, and are also encyclopedic images filling a specific need in the encyclopedia. Mak (talk)  04:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. High quality macro and interesting subject. I completely agree that we need more high quality images like this, even if they are 'simplistic' and boring to some. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While in terms of quality and picture composition I would have no problem nominating this picture. But the subject is of great concern. I cannot deny the quality of this picture, and I think the issue is less about this picture in particular, but more about whether pictures with controversial subject matter or slightly offensive content that fulfill nearly all other requirements of feature pictures, should be included in FP. I suppose I recognize the quality of this picture, but do not think it would be appropriate to consider this a featured picture, an example of the very best on Wikipedia. What does the picture lend to the article? There is not much artistry being used to show something that is so ordinary, mundane, and common to us as human beings. Perhaps a diagram showing where earwax is in the human body and how it is created. Perhaps a microscopic view of earwax would give interesting introspection into what earwax is, providing a new view worthy of an encyclopedic article. Lastly, as the article mentions and the caption mentions, this is only an example of the "wet" type of earwax found commonly in people of European descent. What about an example of "dry" earwax? It is not very universal considering that there are many people in the world with dry earwax, and many people in the world do not use cotton swabs to clean their ears. It might just be my opinion, but better be safe and not have a good quality image listed as FP, than to have something viewed as possibly offensive represent Wikipedia. I would definitely nominate it for a pictures of high quality, but not FP. Sudachi 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A photo of earwax on a Q-tip is like a photo of urine in a toilet. It connects the substance (which is what should be illustrated) to the act of personal hygiene in a manner that reduces the aesthetic properties of the image, while adding nothing to its explanatory value. Different types of earwax presented on a neutral background would work better.--Eloquence* 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Stunning photo quality and has encyclopedic value. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not gallery of the beautiful things in life, so I have not problem promoting this quality image. I do, however, see the point Eloquence is making. If the earwax could be isolated, photographed while still in the ear, or photographed next to other types of earwax as comparison (even on q-tips), that would be even better. --NoahElhardt 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I commented towards the top, I shot many images.. The in-ear images where just a useless muddle.. far too busy and the earwax was hard to see. That is actually why I also took images of the earwax under intense UV, it was initially my intention to use the UV to make the earwax in the ear more visible. Ultimately I decided that the pictures were not useful. I also took images of pieces of earwax in free fall, but they just end up as meaningless blobs (the quality was fine, but the image just wasn't good in any other regard). A nurse recommended I try a swab, and that and I found that the swab gave the image a frame of reference and worked really well. Dry type earwax (which is what I have) is difficult to photograph, because it doesn't really look like anything. In small amounts it is almost completely translucent. It was always my intention to eventually pair the swab image with an image of an ear pick with dry type on it at the same scale, I just haven't found a proper ear pick yet, and I'm pretty disincented to bother with the harsh negativity I've seen here... As far as Eloquence's comment, of all the people on FPC I am the least surprised to see a harsh comment from him towards me. Considering that the swab was recommended to me by a nurse (apparently sterile swabs are used to remove earwax for culturing) I can't really see any reason for the comparison to urine in a toilet, beyond an attempt to be maximally degrading. As far as placing the image on the main page, I view it as something similar to our featured articles like Crushing by elephant, something of an oddball charm of Wikipedia which is undeniably encyclopedic... Where else will you go to find a highly detailed photograph of earwax? --Gmaxwell 19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to offend, and I appreciate your effort, as well as the courage to face public debate about the picture (which is, as others have said, technically very well done). I simply think that the current presentation is suboptimal, because it does not sufficiently separate the subject matter from the act of personal hygiene, which is what many people will think of when they see the picture. "Gross" is not a criterion to not have the picture, but actionable objections to have a more visually pleasing presentation are relevant. Perhaps cropping the "stick" of the swab would make the picture more aesthetically neutral, perhaps a composite would be better. Adding a scale might also help.--Eloquence* 00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is not a single FP with a scale. Why? becuase they are ugly. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. May I add a note that Exploding whale is also a FA? Also, see Unusual articles and the bit that says Wikipedia is not censored, if that makes any case in this discussion. -- Tewy  22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is arguing that this image should be deleted, which is what's implied when you reference the censorship statement. Many of us just don't think it's FP material. -- Moondigger 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The main point I wanted to make with the last statement was that the votes shouldn't be based solely on the "ickiness" of the picture. -- Tewy  02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It does not demonstrate ear wax well, if at all. Some items just do not set them selves up for good pictures. say1988 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(+16/-13, ignoring the vote from the anonymous voter) -- Moondigger 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)