Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/White phosphorus burns

White phosphorus burns
Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015  at 19:34:13 (UTC)




 * Reason:Stumbled across this while trying to remember the name of the luminescent substance used in the 19th century that was actually horribly dangerous. It's.... compelling, and horrible. VERY horrible. Sometimes, a shocking image is more valuable than a thousand words at communicating an idea. This is a vicerally horrible image, but shows the horror of the weapon better than any description would. I've used an undersized thumbnail as I think people should see the image, but maybe not every time they visit the FP page for two weeks.
 * Articles in which this image appears:White phosphorus
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/History/War?
 * Creator:International Solidarity Movement


 * Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - How can I support or oppose without seeing the photograph ? I seriously don feel to see. Is it possible to hide the picture ? DreamSparrow  Chat   20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate hiding images, as I think it vastly increases a chance of a nomination not reaching quorum. (To be clear, I do definitely think this would be fine for the main page, but there's a difference between one day on a landing page and two weeks on one where people are actively working. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam, Thanks for hiding. Excuse for this time because it is seriously effective. I couldn't see to it for a second time. I will surely be avoiding the main page on that particular day. DreamSparrow   Chat   21:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * MMMMM! This is horrifying! I would still Support this mainly on the grounds on how rare it might be to get a photo like this. Though I would like to ask if there are any other images on the chopping block soon, like one on a napalm victim. GamerPro64  00:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No plans for such. Maybe if I get depressed enough to do that Nagasaki image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The one on my talk page? I haven't been able to get back to it for months. I can send you the half-done TIF if you want it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support An image of an underrepresented area. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  04:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not convinced about the composition, here. Imagine this was a less shocking image of a similar subject (say, of a kind of tattoo, or of a non-invasive medical procedure)- would we support? I don't think I would. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Counter argument to that is we can afford to be picky about tattoo photos, as tattoos are easy to find and get. This image also has rarity: there's not going to be white phosphorus burns except as act of war. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but rarity concerns cannot be overriding- we have to balance them with other questions. I think reasonable people will balance them differently; there's a judgement call to be made. (And I said "a particular kind of tattoo" because I was thinking of, for example, a cultural/religious practice of a small non-western group, plausibly also something that'd be rare/unusual for our purposes.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see your point, but I disagree in this case. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it has plenty of encyclopedia value I don't think it is a very good picture. I think that a featured picture needs to be more than encyclopedic, it also needs to be a good picture. While this is a difficult subject to get a photo of, sadly I don't think that another will not be taken. Chillum 17:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 19:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)