Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Newborn umbilical suction.jpg

Newborn_umbilical_suction.jpg
I couldn't have asked for a more descriptive and tighter image. I took the photo on Saturday morning and feature it in umbilical cord. - jk 21:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also featured in childbirth now. -- brian0918  &#153;  09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Originator and Support jk 21:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Neutralitytalk 22:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote. Why do you oppose this shot?jk 00:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Certainly striking; a bit gory, but it makes a point.  Not pretty (should we be complaining that the baby's color doesn't complement the umbilical cord's color very well?) but that's not a requirement. --Andrew 22:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. It's about time we had a photo for the article. -- brian0918  &#153;  23:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, oppose. It sure is rather illustrative, but I don't find it that fantastic. Jonas Olson 14:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point, but should an encyclopedia be filled with artistic photography or, as the top of this page states, images that "add significantly to that article." Can you narrow in on what you mean by fantastic? Gore factor, cropping, contrast, composition, lighting, etc? jk 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be filled with images that add significantly to the article, absolutely! That's why I don't think all images have a chance of becoming a featured picture. The flags in the gallery will never make it, I suppose, but they serve a great purpose as parts of an encyclopedia. And, no, I can probably not narrow in very much on some criterions that this picture fails to fulfill. I just don't think it's so very special. Jonas Olson 20:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * oppose. i too think that it is a significant addition to the article and think it should be there but dont feel that the featured pics would be made better by it. (i feel the same way about several featured illustrations for the record) Cavebear42 00:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * oppose, doesn't add significantly IMHO. Circeus 00:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * support. Illustrative, striking. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * support. Actually I don't like this picture, but it is an excellent illustration. Could also be used on childbirth to good effect. -- Solipsist 19:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. -- brian0918 &#153;  09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - first class pic - Adrian Pingstone 08:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support! --Chris 73 Talk 12:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Janderk 11:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Certainly striking, and very illustrative, but FP isn't the place for such a graphic depiction. It's a great image, great for the article, but it's something many if not most would rather not see while browsing FP Visible. The same could be said for a few featured other images (concerning arachnaphobics, for instance), but this one is considerably more colorful. Matthewcieplak 11:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support! A wonderful picture. Nick Fraser 14:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - that's one dirty baby. I've seen much more pleasant looking childbirth photos. - Pioneer-12 23:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Defiantly Neutral BrokenSegue 01:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. &mdash; Dan | Talk 17:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * +9/-7/1 BrokenSegue 11:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)