Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Norwegian scabies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Norwegian Scabies

Original - While normally relatively harmless, causing itching and possible secondary infections, in those with compromised immune systems, infection of the scabies mite can take over the skin, encrusting it and creating a condition known as Norwegian scabies
Original - While normally relatively harmless, causing itching and possible secondary infections, in those with compromised immune systems, infection of the scabies mite can take over the skin, encrusting it and creating a condition known as Norwegian scabies
Reason
At full resolution, the image is very noisy; however, this is one of the most viscerally grabbing images I've seen on Wikipedia, and I doubt that we could easily get another image like it. Under such circumstances, I think that the normal requirements can be waived to some extent, though I will understand if you do not agree with me. Edits might improve the image.
Articles this image appears in
Scabies
Creator
Ukster1 (Andrew G)
  • Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amateur photograph. A bit blurry on the right arm. crassic![talk] 01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I sympathise with your reasoning, image quality is one of the main criteria and this one just isn't up to spec. Motion blurred, noisy and out of focus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only is the image quality a problem. It has in the meantime been nominated as a VIC and as I have explained there, the image does not seem to be representative of the how the (already extreme variant) Norwegian Scabies manifests itself. It is IMO an extremely severe example, which is more terrifying than enc. valuable. Has the affected person been asked if it is OK to publish his/her extremely severe skin infection in the Public Domain. I do not know if that is required(?). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that it isn't particularly encyclopaedic if it is an extreme example of the condition. I don't see how permission should be needed if there is nothing identifiable of the person in the image, though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)
      • My concern about having asked for permission from the patient is based on a speculation that the specific manifestion of the infection shown in the photo is of such severity and uniqueness that it could be correlated with an identifiable person. The infected person is (according to the source) a home-less person. For me it seems to originate from a non-public place like a hospital, and the person in shown in a miserable condition. My identifiability concern is speculative, though. I am not a domain specialist in the infection, I just read pieces about it on available on-line resources and saw some other images of the infection which had completely different manifestations. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It's a severe form of the disease, but I wouldn't say it's atypical for an immuno-compromised individual who does not receive treatment. That not receiving treatment is relatively rare is a good thing, but this shows the effect of the disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - atypical example. 8thstar 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Not promoted . --John254 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)