Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Scheme ant worker anatomy-en.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image:Scheme ant worker anatomy-en.svg

The image is one of the best i have done. so i believe it deserves it. the image is also already featured on commons; it apears on the artice Ant, and I, LadyofHats created the image.

• Nominate- LadyofHats 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Integrated Key version. Excellent diagram, but I'm wondering what the purpose of the white box and orange text are. I suggest eliminating the white box and making all the text black, unless there's some particular reason why it can't be done that way. -- moondigger 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

the reason for the white box is to join elements together, the orange text, is the title and the black text inside the box are the different elements of the "metapleural gland" LadyofHats 19:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just figured that out. Maybe there's a different way to convey the same information? I don't like that the metapleural gland text is the same color as the body segment titles, and still find the white box a bit distracting. -- moondigger 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

One other suggestion, which probably borders on being too nitpicky: The background color for the HEAD and GASTER sections should be different from each other, and the color for PETIOLE should be something a bit easier to distinguish from the color backing ALITRUNK. I realize they are different hues, but they are close enough that they don't contrast well. I suggest a pastel blue for one of the sections and a pastel green for another. Maybe HEAD and PETIOLE could retain their current colors, and make ALITRUNK and GASTER blue and green respectively. Apologies if I'm being a pain... I think these suggestions would improve the diagram. -- moondigger 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, with integrated key. This is an excellent example of wikipedia's finest work in illustrating, in this case, ant anatomy. The one nitpick I have is the white box--it's too attention grabbing and looks like a legend. Could you replace it with a dashed line box around the two items, so that they're not so prominent? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, but will change to full support if the graphic design is slightly improved: Some of the labels are bunched too tightly together for comfort, there's room to spread them out a bit. Also, something should be done about that white box, looks too crammed-in. Also, change one of the yellow bars to a different color, and the different height of the bars seems unlogical (the lower edge should be either straight, or regularly descending towards the right, conforming to the outline of the ant). The best work of Wikipedia needs to look better than good, too! --Janke | Talk 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment i have changed the image, removed the white box and spread the labels ( even when there is not that much space as one would think, since the lines tend to cross quite easily. and making too long lines makes a diagram harder to read). On the other hand i have to disagree on the color change. the bloks on the back are there to mark diferent segments of the ant, the diferent segments are now apart from each other, noone that has seen the image has confused the head with the gaster, not thought they are one and the same part.The blocks are also there to compensate the composition of the image. without the blocks the image would tend to the right. that the first and last block are from the same color "encloses" the image. so that there is balance even when the ant form is so unbalanced. and Yet Another reason why i do not change it, is because the color scheme of the image. Having too many colors is as bad as having too few. the image is made in grey and warm "orange-like" colors so that making one blue and another green as Moondigger suggested would not only include 2 colors more ( without adding meaning or making the diagram simpler) but also move the whole scheme to the cold colors....I hope you can understand my reasons, and apologise my lousy English LadyofHats 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC).
• Support edit 1. Highly informative and encyclopedic -- Samir धर्म 08:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Very encylopadic, detailed and interesting diagram. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Great work, we need more diagrams like this. --liquidGhoul 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's a support for edit 1. --liquidGhoul 00:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support edit 1 Wonderful -Ravedave 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This picture does not have the value it seems to have. Latin names of the exoskeleton segments can perhaps put laymen in awe, but convey zero information on the ant biology. Thus, the only possible value of the picture is either artistic, inciting the (fake) feeling of complexity through the many lines and unfamiliar words, or demonstrative value, demonstrating existence of a particular kind of images if they are underrepresented in WP featured pictures. In that case, this picture is not even the best in its category. To be more constructive, I would replace it with a picture of an ant carrying some information on their biology, such as leaf cutter ants with their leves, or floating nest of fire ants, or queen laying eggs, or scheme of ant development stages or something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kokot.kokotisko (talk • contribs) .

An unusual opinion, I have to say. Would you like the full text of an article in the picture perhaps? -Ravedave 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The diagram shows the morphology of an ant naming its elements. the names were taken from scientific references a myrmercologist would use and recomend. LadyofHats 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The objection is not only unusual, but completely invalid. The image's purpose is not to provide information about ant biology, but to give names for the various components of the exoskeletons—something that is near impossible to do using a text-only description. [1] doesn't give any details about how a computer works, it is nonetheless a good diagram because it allows "laymen", as the objector calls them, to learn exactly how the different components are named. As such, it is a perfect companion to an article in which specific jargon is used. FP on Wikipedia should be an "add value" to the corresponding article; this diagram is; the objection is ludicrous. Phils 10:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support edit 1. --Randy Johnston (‽) 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Request for clean-up - Would someone mind cleaning these up in the edit:
• making the coloured bars all the same height
• it's a pity that in the rendered version (ie, on the image preview page) the labels are pretty messy - often the red lines overlap the legend text.
• doing something about this 3 sided red box around the "Metapleural gland".
• there seems to be missing a Petiole (I)? There's a II, III...VII...shouldn't there be a I?
• "anepisternum" isn't capitalised. Should it also perhaps be "antepisternum"? "sting" also needs a capital.
• I don't like the way that "tibial spurs" points to two of them, while "tibia" and "femur" only point to one each. It's not clear from the diagram whether all the legs have tibias and femurs. By contrast, it seems redundant to point to *both* "scapes" - one can safely assume that symmetrical parts of the body share the same name.
• If any of these terms have common English names, they should be included, perhaps in brackets. Like, maybe the "occiput" is also just referred to as the "cranium" or something.
• Can't really tell what "scutellum" is pointing to
• It would be good if pairs of labels could be somehow brought together to show the contrast better. Eg metanotum/mesonotum, mesothoracic/metathoracic spiracle. Stevage 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

i will not chnage the height of the bars becouse of how i already said they are there to balance the ant.

i just noticed the problem with the rendering. i will change the text into vectors to fix it

the tree sided box is there to substitute the white box.

The petiole can have one or 2 segments depending on the ant specie. [here] there is an example. the numbers on the Gaster remain the same always.

i checked the book again and Anepisterum is right. I jus Capitalised it together with Sting

Tibia, femur, tibia spurs all point two. only tarsus points just one, and that is becouse of space. i can not point all legs without having more lines than diagram. "i honestly dont get how do you understand that every scape should have the same name and not that every leg has the same segments. -one can safely assume that symmetrical parts of the body share the same name...look at the diagram you will realise all legs have the same amount of segments."

there are pointed lines on the diagram dividing the segments. scutellum is the segment just after the hole "Metanotum". why does this piece has a name in special.. I have no idea... Why do i place it on the diagram ?. Becouse it was marked in the book. is there a simpler name in english for it? must probably, but i will not change them until someone shows me a real source for them. the ones i used were taken from the must specialized book i could find.

if you find a way of making pairs of names without crossing lines, please let me know.

other changes have been made.

LadyofHats 10:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

• Support - Great illustration, adds very good value to the article. --vineeth 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ant worker morphology corrected.svg Raven4x4x 07:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)