Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Toothbrush in stomach

Toothbrush in stomach


Well, it's the best quality I could get with the gastroscope and the stuff on the side and bottom is added automatically by PACS when downloaded. It probably won't fly, but, when else will you see a picture of a toothbrush in a stomach? -- Samir  धर्म 06:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support. - Samir  धर्म 06:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * when else will you see a picture of a toothbrush in a stomach? - Hopefully, never. [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose. —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 14:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are no other endoscopy WP:FAC's and this is probably the best we can get in terms of interest. I'm assuming no one wants to look at ulcers and polyps and stuff.  It's different than the usual panoramas and the like -- Samir   धर्म 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all articles, and not even all featured articles need a featured picture. Maybe this is just one subject that won't have a featured picture.say1988 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I think it's interesting. I like the way it's got information on the side and the clipped corners, it feels like it's being presented in the right context, because it feels real, rather than all prettied up. I also like that you've got two pictures of the event and that it shows the inside of a stomach, because not even the stomach article shows an actual stomach. The only slight problem I have is the lack of information about the picture. For example, what is that black thing with '20' on it? What does the 20 mean? How did the toothbrush get into the stomach? If you add some details to the page for the image I'll happily change my vote to a full support. Icey 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's mildly instructive.  But even if I ignore the fact that it doesn't meet minimum resolution requirements, it doesn't have what it takes to be a featured picture, IMO.
 * Support Highly interesting -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too small. Even with 2 pictures it doesn't make the size requirements. I can see good things in the picture, but nothing to change my vote. say1988 23:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having two pictures of a similar thing is a little redundant. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the image is interesting, it is of low quality. It almost looks bleached, like if it were taken with a flash that is too hot, and it doesn't render well as a thumb due to the text that overlaps the image. Tito xd (?!?) 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- Titoxd he said it was taken with a gastroscope so how can you complain on quality???


 * Support very interseting and something a bit different, love to see this on the main page!!!-- Ch ild zy ( Talk 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it really does a does add a lot to foreign body. However the resolution is on the low side. Also, it would be much better without the "released into public domain by patient" line - that info should go in the description, not on the image.Stevage 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - yuck. --P199 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Intelligent. Thanks for coming out -- Samir   धर्म 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see the encylcopedic value of this image. I would support an image of ulcers or polyps or something "medical" from an endoscopy, assuming high quality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Highly interesting and adds to the Foreign Body article. Sotakeit 13:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Froggydarb 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)