Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyogenic granuloma 1.jpg

Pyogenic granuloma on a finger-1.jpg

 * Reason:This image is an excellent example of a Pyogenic granuloma (PG), and is a better quality image than the one found in "Fitzpatrick's Color Atlas & Synopsis of Clinical Dermatology" (see )
 * Articles in which this image appears:Pyogenic granuloma
 * Creator:Kilbad


 * Support as nominator --kilbad (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the identification of the lesion correct? If it is our article is misleading or incomplete as it seems to say these occur in the mouth and nose and rarely eyes. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think that it would be interesting to have more clinical photographs on the wiki, and I commend the photographer for submitting this one. I presume that the person with the lesion is also the photographer - it might be helpful for clarification. This photograph would be useful in a collection of photographs of pyogenic granulomas to show the range of appearances. I believe that the appearances shown are consistent with a pyogenic granuloma. They are common on the hands and fingers, and the English language wiki article is not very good. However, I think that it is not a very big one and not a particularly good example of one. They are often more raised than this one. To be more useful the documentation should give the history of this particularly one and not an attempt at the typical clinical history. I would like to know what actually happened to this lesion - how it started, the treatment, and how long it took to get better. If these details of this lesion are available, it would help to be more certain of the diagnosis. If an accompanying photograph of the whole hand was also available, it would help to locate the exact position of the lesion on the hand. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is my first feature photo nomination, so please bear with me. This lesions is definitely a pyogenic granuloma (PG), as I confirmed it with a biopsy.  With regard to your comments, Snowman, while I agree this is not a "large" PG, it is definitely a classic pyogenic granuloma, and I think it is a better image than the one in "Fitzpatrick's Color Atlas & Synopsis of Clinical Dermatology" (see ).  Therefore, is there a qualitative problem with the image that would keep it from featured status, or are the issues that have been raised, like the content of the caption, etc., things I can work on to get it to feature status? ---kilbad (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already raised some issues that need clarification or information. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me restate my comment/question. Is the actual image quality good enough for feature status?  If so, then I will work on the caption.  If not, then there is no reason to refine the caption as feature status will never be possible. ---kilbad (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The result will be apparent at the end of the nomination not at the beginning. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that improving the image description will make this image more useful regardless of its FP status, so I have rewritten the image description, but I would have preferred more information from the author about the photograph. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Question If you thought it had classical appearance, why was a biopsy done? If the history was right for a pyogenic granuloma, then in the UK this probably would have been treated without a diagnostic biopsy. However, partly depending on the setting, it think that it is quite possible that a more domed lesion would have been removed at the time of initial treatment and sent for a histopathology report. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being small doesn't make it a bad example, particularly if small ones are more typical. The magnification needs to be much higher (at least 3x) for a featured image imo. The image is still valuable. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are small ones more typical? Perhaps larger ones are more florid and more characteristic. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I don't think the image is sufficient for a featured picture; the camera is way too close... the finger itself should be apparent to set the scale. We don't need a ruler to convey the scope nor scale of a bump on a finger; too distracting. I think a better photo would result in a more satisfactory outcome for a first nom :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding to what Noodle said, IMO the technical aspect of the image could have been improved with a straight/photoshopped ruler and a cleaner background. The lighting is also a bit harsh. I would say this is a prime candidate for VPC --Muhammad (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Looking at the feedback thus far, I feel that this photo will probably not make it to feature status. However, since this is my first featured photo nomination, could someone expound further on the qualitative/technical deficiencies of this photo, so I can improve my technique for future photos.  Also, just so I can further analyze where my photography is going wrong, would either of the following photos of mycosis fungoides be good enough for feature photo status? File:Plaque_of_mycosis_fungoides_1.jpg and File:Plaque_of_mycosis_fungoides_2.jpg  If not, why?  Thank you all again for your feedback! ---kilbad (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the documentation should include a more complete account about the lesion in the photograph. You have not told us how long this lesion took to got better, even when asked above. One has to treat the a non-healing ulcer with respect. Incidentally, I think that the image documentation of the mycosis fungoides images is abysmal. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, kilbad has asked how he might improve his photography, not the captioning. He might want to try submitting one or two of those images at WP:PPR for feedback. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope to see better image documentation with any subsequent photographs. FP would indicate an image and its documentation is one of the finest on the wiki. I am puzzled why we have not even been told us how long this lesion took to got better We do not even know what units the divisions on the scale are - the readers should not be left to guess or puzzle out what part of the hand is shown to try to work out what size the scale is. If this photograph was taken in a clinical setting, then I presume that the patient's permission was gained and I trust that you are aware of medico-legal requirements on how the consent should be gained from a patient. I think that the image documentation of a clinical photograph should include that the patient had given permission for the photograph to be widely distributed on the internet. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much better to upload to commons an image set - low power photographs, close-up photographs, and a photograph of the histopathology (if obtained during the diagnostic process). Snowman (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose- this one's just a little clumsy to me. The wonky ruler, the blown background... A bit too "home made" for a shot like this, for me. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment-At first glance I thought a more wettish or bleeding appearance would be better. On a larger scale, this is surely a good photograph. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At high resolution the far side of the lesion looks out-of-focus to me. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agreeing with comments above; I think would be better if the camera were a bit further away to get a shot of the whole finger, then the ruler wouldn't be necessary. The background is distracting, too. It's also a little out of focus when you zoom in - was a tripod used for the shot? Hope all the feedback inspires the nominator to keep trying :) Sasata (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thank you all for your feedback, and I will plan on using WP:PPR in the future (which I was unaware of until now). With regard to the lesion itself, it had been present on a patient of mine for about a month, during which time it had enlarged and periodically started bleeding.  The lesion was bothering the patient due to that occasional bleeding, and cosmetic appearance, so I performed a shave biopsy before cauterizing the base.  Additionally, our clinic does have a photo consent form which the patient did sign before the photo was taken and used on Wikipedia.  The units on the ruler are in mm and cm.  I did not use a tripod, and with that being said, should I have used one?  What type of camera would you recommed I use for these close-up macro shots?  What type of lighting should I be using?  Also, again, would either of the following photos of mycosis fungoides be good enough for feature photo status with regard to image quality? File:Plaque_of_mycosis_fungoides_1.jpg and File:Plaque_of_mycosis_fungoides_2.jpg  If not, why?  Thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)