Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bloody frog.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:Bloody frog.jpg

[edit]

300px|Bloody Frog

We normally chloroform the frog and then dissect it. Killing it might damage the internal organs. But unfortunately this one received a low dose and woke up, turned around and started jumping with its organs hanging around. It was a shocking sight and whilst my friends took care of the problem I snapped a few pictures for wiki. (I still get nightmares). Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: out of project scope Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 07:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I am not sure it is correct to state that the contribution is out of project scope. On the educational side it could be a clear demonstration on how not to prepare a frog for dissection. On the technical side, I would argue that the photo is on the low res limit with an unfortunate light although the special circumstances could mitigate that. I do not know much about dissection, and I am surprised that the animal was not killed efficiently prior to dissection. Would that not be normal? -- Slaunger 13:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The animal is not normally killed as killing it may damage the organs (mechanically killing) and poisoning may be considered dangerous when students dissect. Hence, chloroforming is normally done. But unfortunately, this one as I mentioned, received a low dose. I have a higher resolution photograph, but I believe 2mp is the minimum requirement. Right? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, glad I do not study that science, it would be hard for me to accept the procedures. With respect to image size the technical quality normally has to be very high for a 2 MPx picture to get through the nomination phase unless there are mitigating reasons. If you have a larger res photo, which gives an overall better technical quality do upload it. -- Slaunger 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vivisection seems to be the proper term for this and there is no commons category or gallery yet for this subject here. There are two other images that appeared when I searched Image:Activist against vivisection.JPG and Image:Harbin Gedenkplakette Einheit731.JPG. -- carol 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Frog

  •  Info Here's a higher resolution picture. Slaunger, since you do not think this picture is out of project scope, could you please remove the 'out of scope' template? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually what I had in mind was that you should upload a new version of the old image not create a new one, but nvm. Regarding removal of the template, I am not so sure, I will do that; although I do not agree that the photo is out of project scope, I really cannot replace it with a supporting vote. Actually, I am inclined to oppose it, but to do that I have to make up my mind why I would oppose it. The easy reason would be to just refer to bad lightning, but really I have a hard time filtering away my dislike of the cruelty in the scenario as such. But an FP does not have to display beauty - I have to think about it. -- Slaunger 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am opposed to gross pictures. I really think that an FP should be something that one likes to look at. If this picture was of ultra-superior quality (which I don't think it is, though it's not bad either), I would still be disgusted and therefore I would not like to look at it. Not FP for me. --JDrewes 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I really think" <-- thinking is cool, I would like to encourage that; however if you could look through the FP guidelines and find something there that supports your thoughts on this it would make it appear that you used research and documentation to base your thoughts on. I did not think when I made my first comment here -- I don't like the image, I did not study biology even in high school -- dissection was one of the reasons. Instead of 'thinking', I looked to see if the commons had a category for such encyclopedic images and they didn't, but they have enough to make one. -- carol 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am a bit scared that featuring these kind of pictures might encourage people to try to shoot other twisted images for nomination. Also I don't think this image is good enough anyway. /Daniel78 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Common Muhammad Mahdi Karim, I'm sure you are making fun of these peoples he he he... Anyway, in my opinion this image is not valuable: There is nothing to learn of it, it's not a proper vivisection and there is nothing difficult of doing such a photo, I could have done that at 5 year old if I had the equipment... Acarpentier 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If it makes any difference to the other voters here, amphibian brains lack the features that produce basic emotions in mammals, birds, and reptiles. So this unfortunate animal probably is not suffering. That said, the composition simply isn't anything special. It's a botched vivisection, nothing more. Durova 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The Commons:Image Guidelines state "An image “speaks” to different people differently, and has the capacity to evoke emotions such as tenderness, rage, desire, rejection, happiness, and sadness, good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations." Keeping that in mind, I believe this picture does just that. Just because a picture is gross, does not mean its not FP material. If the picture has technical flows, then please let me know specifically how and where. Thanks Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Ugly and irrelevant. I don't see any useful purpose in this picture other than shocking people or satisfy their morbid curiosity - Alvesgaspar 08:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose After thinking about it, I have made up my mind about your nomination. I oppose the image for several reasons:
    1. The photo is not sufficiently self-explanatory. You have to read the context to realize that the photo is a result of a vivisection mishap. The frog is photographed on a package with some gloves, which gives hints to the laboratory environment, but this is nowhere clear enough.
    2. The photo demonstrates how not to do vivisection. Although this is somewhat educational and useful knowledge I think a vivisection photo to become FP rather should show a professional vivsection, where the animal is sedated correctly, and it is shown in a vivsection/lab environment with the tools used for vivsection alongside the frog.
    3. The flash lightning and messy background indicate point-and-shoot conditions. Not surprising given the conditions, but too low quality to be mitigated for FP. And that does not imply that I urge you to go back and reshoot the scenary...
    4. I consider the photo as being equivalent to nominating photos of accidents in the public. Such photos serve others "morbid curiosity" as Alves states. And although I support the existence of such photographs on Commons I do not think their presence should be emphasized by giving them FP status unless there are very special conditions such as great historical value.
    5. Although you state that others were busy taking care of the situation while you took the photos, I am a somewhat surprised that you chose to spend your time photographing the scenario instead of actively dealing with the situation.
In summary, valuable, but not FP material IMO. -- Slaunger 09:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think this is very well in our scope, but I oppose this because I don't like looking at it. I could of very well came up with technical reasons for opposing, but I didn't feel like it. (Which is ok people.) Rocket000 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you Slaunger for being the only one to correctly vote for the picture. Regarding your comments, "I am a somewhat surprised that you chose to spend your time photographing the scenario instead of actively dealing with the situation," well.. let me just say I would not have helped much (too many cooks...) and I was better off doing something to share my experience.

Taking into consideration Slaunger's reasons I withdraw my nomination --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Bloody_frog.jpg&oldid=94460311"