Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dragonfly morphology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dragonfly Morphology

The basic morphology of a female dragonfly. This particular diagram is close in likeness to that of a Green Darner dragonfly. They can grow up to 3 inches in length with a wingspan of 4 and a half inches. It is identified as female due to the colour of its abdomen.

Edit 1, by Fir0002 - corrected faulty text

Edit 2 - Vector version, by Gustavb – same text as Edit 1

Edit 3 - edit of Gustavb's vector to make the hind wing wider at base

Edit 4 - more wing adjustments

I am self nominating a peice of my own work which shows the basic morphology and anatomy of a female dragonfly (specifically a Green Darner). I created it for the Dragonfly article which is extremely lacking in any kind of anatomical or scientific detail, riddled with errors and inaccuracies. This article is accompanying several major updates I plan to make to the article to bring it up to featured article status. I believe articles like those on the cat, horse, dog, wasp, ant, etc have a high chance of being selected for FA status and so am focusing my efforts on bringing them up to a good standard. I believe this diagram qualifies for FP because:

• It was created exclusively for Wikipedia by me.
• It is of high resolution and detail (I do not plan to make an SVG version as the setup of my computer will not allow for an SVG program, however it is about 3000 pixels by 2000 so its as large as anyone will ever need it to be.)
• Aesthetically pleasing and simple to follow
• Anatomically correct and useful for all kinds of people researching wasps
• Common to all species of dragonfly and also damselflies.

As I've said before with these mainstream article diagrams, I can just imagine kid having to go and research dragonflies at school and coming back with this image and a report on them based on my work. And thats just the best feeling, that somewhere, someone will learn something from this. And what more can we ask for a diagram and an article! So I hope you'll join me in wanting to give this featured picture status. Ta!

• Nominate and support. Please do not count this vote when tallying the end result as I am self nominating. Thanks! - WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. I like this diagram a lot, but I have to ask the question: Why exactly does your computer setup not allow for an SVG program? Just about any computer, in theory, can create an SVG file. Obviously Adobe Photoshop cannot, but there are others that can. The issue that many of us have is that SVGs are much smaller in filesize and can be scaled far better than a bitmap. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2. Fixes the only issue I had with the diagram. Good job! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. It's another case of the SVG/PNG issue. And I don't believe that this image is as large as anyone will ever need it to be, because the standards keep going up. Eventually this may be considered a small image. Why create something in limited PNG when you can create it in virtually unlimited SVG (in terms of size)? But, I have to support because just as the wasp image, this meets all the requirements for FPs. --Tewy 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, I use a graphics tablet to draw from. Sadly one of the core components of every SVG program I've come across to date conflicts with the tablet software and causes the machine to crash. Finding a work around for it has so far been unsucessful. In the future when I replace this tablet I will likely convert to SVG based programs for this style of drawing. I appreciate rising size standards for images, and it is a fair point especially given the abundance of HD technology. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Support vector version. Yaaay vectors! Now i really like it :-D. Good job WikipedianProlific, and thanks Gustavb! --Tewy 02:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very well done. The resolution is fairly large, and if the need for an even larger version should ever arise, it shouldn't be too much work to vectorize the image. mstroeck 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Edits 1-4. I really don't mind the PNG/SVG issue. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The discussion below involving a cooperative effort to fix an error in the image is a great example for the advantages SVG has over PNG for this kind of illustrations. --Dschwen 07:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. Encyclopedic, high resolution, pleasing to the eye. Definitely exemplifies the best that Wikipedia has to offer. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose "Ovipositor" spelt wrong (it's spelt "ovipositEr" on the diagram) - Adrian Pingstone 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A google search yields both results. Ovipositor is more abundant but none the less ovipositer also seems to be prolific. I will however change it as the wikipedia article is for Ovipositor. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, not prolific. OVIPOSITER gets 1270 results and OVIPOSITOR gets 218000 results. I also checked www.dictionary.com and all the 37 dictionaries that the site accesses say ovipositor is correct - Adrian Pingstone 18:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what WikipedianProlific meant. He wasn't disagreeing with you. NauticaShades^(talk) 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There seems to be an extra slash at "Hind// Aft Wing". Also, shouldn't the word "ocellus" be capitalized for consistency? --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (edits 1, 2; inaccuracies). Very nice work as with all your stuff, but I already made some comments on the hindwing shape inaccuracy [1]. You recognized this problem in text on the description page, but I feel the image itself must be fixed. As I mentioned, the precise hindwing shape is important because it is one of the key distinguishing features between damselfly and dragonfly. Until this is correct, I cannot approve FP and I ask the other voters to reconsider on this issue. I know it's a pain to have to go back to the "drawing board" (ouch), but it'll be worth it. --Chinasaur 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 3 or similar variation (as per comments immediately above). Great work guys, and great collaborative effort. --Chinasaur 03:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great diagram. I would have liked it more if the font was a bit larger. —Jared Hunt October 3, 2006, 00:20 (UTC)
• Support Preference for Edit 1. Very professional - good job. --Fir0002 08:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Quality illustration. --S0uj1r0 10:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Would be nice if an SVG version was available, but ... oh well. Brilliant drawing. Hope to see more. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question. How difficult would it be to address the above text concerns? --Tewy 02:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be fairly considerable sadly. Not impossible but it would take about as long as it would to just draw it again. Which was why the concerns were addressed in the text rather than changing the diagram. Personally I feel the likeness is close enough and the wing situation is explained in enough depth to prevent any potential cofussion, but I do see where concerns are coming from. In any case its made fairly clear the wings are only in it to give it a sense of proportion (it didn't look right without them). Its really more about the parts of its body than the shape of the wings. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 09:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've made an edit which I think has corrected any text problems. If there are more that I missed, just tell me what needs to be changed.
• Comment I drew a vector version. The labels are the same as in Edit 1 (I hope) but the font is different, this was needed as I wanted to keep the strings as text in the SVG. – Gustavb 00:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The vector is much too small. NauticaShades^(talk) 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a vector image. It can be scaled to however large/small you want it without loss of detail. Support. howcheng {chat} 06:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason I changed the size is that Mediawiki has a size limit set to 1024 for rasterization of SVGs. If I make it larger than that, and the the user has a max thumbnail size bigger than 1024 (e.g. 1280x1204), the rasterized image will be scaled up to that size on the image description page though it's still only 1024. The result looks really ugly (I started with uploading a 3000x2000 version, see the image history). Check this image for instance with your max thumbnail size set to more than 1024. But anyway, it's a vector image, so the size only affects how it's rendered on Wikipedia, it doesn't tell anything about the actual resolution of the image… –Gustavb 08:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support SVG version (3). Great illustration! --Dschwen 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do we really have to vote whether a factually incorrect version (all except edit3) or the corrected versions should be promoted? --Dschwen 07:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support SVG, another awesome diagram. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Chinasaur. It's a very nice diagram, however, if it is inaccurate and there needs to be text in the image description to correct the errors, this is unacceptable. Now that we have a vector version, can someone just adjust the line segments in the wings? --Andrew c 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well they could do I suppose, although that will take additional time, and I wouldn't say the wings are that incorrect personally. Its a bit of artistic/anatomical difference of opinion I think. If one looks at the photo in the description its pretty clear that its only the hind/aft wing which is elongated at its base which isn't clear. It could be elongated at its base in the diagram, its not clear if thats the case because its not clear if the wings are flat facing the viewer of the image or at an angle to them, obsuring their exact shape. I do see where this point of concern comes from... however, its not a diagram to show the wings of the Dragonfly, but rather a diagram to show the morphology of the dragonflies body. The wings are only shown for proportion which is clearly pointed out. Changing it seems tantamount to asking Leonardo da Vinci to change Mona Lisa's hand because its 'too big and not anatomically correct to the human female form' at what point does anatomical detail v's aesthetics take over?. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, this morphological feature is one of the defining things between dragonflies and damselflies. It's not like someone is going to look at the Mona Lisa's hand and think it's a painting of a chimp, while someone could look at these wings and think its the wrong species. And seriously, when I get home I will try to edit this myself. If the image has been turned into vectors, it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes of editing. I'm not sure what program you use or how you created this, but I'm familiar with Illustrator and Freehand, and making these kinds of changes are not complex or time consuming. And I want to tell you that this is a very beautiful diagram. The color choice and design is nice, the image clean and illustrative. It just seems that an image with a known error that could confuse what species is in question that could be fixed in 5 minutes shouldn't be promoted until it is fixed.--Andrew c 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so how does it look with the wider wing? Is that more accurate? (side note, how come my file size is 1MB, and Gustavb's was 100kB? Any ideas what I did wrong? I was using illustrator to edit and save the file.)--Andrew c 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was just comparing mine to Gustavb's and I totally messed up somehow. All the strokes got a lot thicker, and the italic type was lost. Any suggestions?--Andrew c 03:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. –Gustavb 11:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Right nice work so far. It needs to taper in more though, so where the hind wing is slimest at its base, it needs to be even slimmer and less curved on the right hand edge. It then needs to taper out longer, and it needs to be less rounded on the elongated edge. But its an improvement. Though none of this changes the fact the dragonflies wings don't usually sit that high except when its on its 'high' stroke in flight.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be able to work on this again in a few hours. I think I know what I need to change, but I'm a little confused by "less curved on the right hand edge... taper out longer... less rounded on the elongated edge". Sorry, I just want to make sure I get this right. Do you know of an image that shows the wings from this angle? Or any other pointers? (What I think I need to do is to make the base/wing attachment area skinnier, get rid of the little curve before the wide part on the right hand side close to the base/attachment area, and lessen the curve between the attachment and the wide area, so the wide part starts much closer to the wing base/attachment). Thanks for your help.--Andrew c 13:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried my best to go on what was said above. Please look at edit 4 and tell me if that is ok, or more specifically what needs to be changed. Thanks!--Andrew c 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think edit 3 was closer. The elongation is correct but the wing doesn't start to expand outwards until its further from the body, theres a sort of 'wing stem'. But it doesn't matter. I think version 3 will be best as we are in the process of beating a horse which if not dead, certainly soon will be. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind working more to make it accurate. I just didn't understand what needed to be fixed about version 3. I mean, you could take the image and use a basic paint program and draw a very rough outline or something to illustrate what needs to be changed. Or if version 3 is good enough, so be it.--Andrew c 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think version 3 is accurate enough for FP. Now that it's vector we can make some minor additional changes but let's not worry about it for the purposes of this vote. --Chinasaur 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, its an anatomical diagram not a precise dimensioned schematic. For that reason version 3 seems best. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the votes in context, it seems safe to me to confirm FP for edit 3, but I'm not familiar with how this process works. Can someone move this forward? --Chinasaur 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Dragonfly morphology edit 3.svg --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)