Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wasp morphology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wasp morphology

The basic morphology of a sterile female worker wasp. This particular diagram is close in likeness to that of a yellowjacket wasp found commonly around the world. It can be identified as female by both the number of division on its antenna and by the presense of its sting.

Reasons for nominating;

I am self nominating my latest work which shows the basic morphology and anatomy of a female wasp. I created it for the wasp article which was extremely lacking in any kind of anatomical or even scientific detail. Its has accomponied my continuing efforts to make the article good article status. This includes adding many more sections on wasp reproduction, behaviour, biology etc. I believe it is up to wikipedias featured pictures for the following reasons:

• It was created exclusively for Wikipedia by me
• It is of high resolution and detail
• Aesthetically pleasing and simple to follow
• Anatomically correct and useful for all kinds of people researching wasps
• Common to all species of wasp

I can just imagine a child having to go and research wasps 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. Of that much I'm sure! So I hope you'll join me in wanting to give this featured picture status. Thanks!

• Nominate. - WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (please do not count this as a vote when tallying the results as I am self nominating.)
• oppose encyclopedic but doesn't have a "wow" factor--Vircabutar 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's a good diagram but it's too small. I would definitely support an SVG version. Support. —Keenan Pepper 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose bitmap version. Would love to see an SVG version. --Dschwen 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now uploaded a 1900 x 1820 pixel version (this is the original size it was drawn at). --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please upload the original. Mediawiki has very efficient and high-quality image scaling algorithms, but the larger the original image, the better. —Keenan Pepper 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Which Software did you use to create this image. I cannot believe you used a bitmap based program for this kind of work. --Dschwen 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Drawn in adobe photoshop 7.0.1 using mostly the line tool (which is vector based) it then lays a raster stroke in place of the vector line. This creates a base lineart layer under which colour can be added (each on a seperate layer. If your interested in seeing how its composed your welcome to see the .psd file if you have a program which can read layer based raster formats? Let me know your msn and I'll send it to you. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm changing to support. This illustration is superb in terms of clarity and style and it is great to see that you have more of this kind. But I'm still doing this with a sad eye, because I cannot help but think that your talent is sort of wasted on using a bitmap based program. Please check out Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, a vectorized verion would be a lot more valuable, think tack-sharp prints, next gen monitors, easy translation in other languages, clickable links and image parts, linking to wikipedia articles etc. --Dschwen 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think that the encyclopedicness overthrows the wow-factor in this case, and I'm not going to throw a fit over a 300 pixel difference. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comments: The terms oculomalar space, ocellus, vertex, tergum, etc don't appear in the wasp article; it would be helpful to explain them on the image page, as well as in the article. Looking at the "vertex" disambig page, I guess I know what it's pointing to now, but I don't know why it's important. For "ocelli", I wonder how much of the head it's meant to indicate. Some of the parts have numbers that I presume are counts, but not all (surely it doesn't have just 1 antenna!) - I would favor removing the counts. (In general, a nice diagram; I'd probably vote for a higher-res copy if the article & it were tied together better.) --Davepape 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dave. I only came across the article today. I'm in the process of having it entirely wewritten from a factual scientific point of view. It'll probably take me about a week. I think based on the subject matter it has a real possibility of being a front page article. This diagram is just a small part of it. Those are things I will be sure to include. When I upload a higher res version i will also remove the 'part counts' as suggested.--WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Support updated version. --Davepape 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. I am also impressed with the nominator's goals in creating the diagram. -- AJ24 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I hope you can upload the svg version so other languages could translete it for themselves. Also, I would think about removing the heading "Basic Morphology...", but that's just a comment/suggestion and does not influence support/oppose vote. Renata 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A vector based version of this and a similar piece of mine () are almost certainly to be converted (i.e. redrawn) in SVG format. Trouble I've had today is getting a good SVG program thats easy to install and works. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Informative and nicely drawn. --Bagginz 07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent image. I'll support the dragonfly too, if you nominate it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. (I reiterate SVG comments; I think the title font could be more appealing (initial letters look over-boldened) and the white space between title and illustration reduced; and I suggest uploading your work to Wikicommons.) Nice job! Outriggr 01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Nice design, but I'm not too sold on the color scheme - don't really like the gray, and it seems disproportionate to the yellow compared to something like this: Image:WaspBuildingNest wb.jpg. Also the labelling isn't really that clear. I'm refering in particular to "Ocelli" (is that the skull or the top of the head or what), and "vertex"/"gena" (they seem to be pointing to the same thing. --Fir0002 09:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid to say they are literally what they are pointing at. The back of the neck and the back of the head. Although this may not seem important enough in a diagram, it is immensely so. The vertex and gena are used to differentiate between different insect species. Telling the difference between say a big wasp and a small hornet can come down to those two regions as its where structurally almost all insects are different. I take on board comments on the colour scheme although I would say firstly: its a diagram not photography, but more over - some wasps are entirely grey, some are white suprisingly, when born they are pink. Thanks for the comments. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I actually like the color scheme a lot, it looks clean and professional. It is neat how the principal colors of the insects are used to tint the greyish background. To appreciate it you shoud check out Prolifics illustrations side by side. --Dschwen 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I would also prefer it if "Basic Morphology of" were omitted (and of course, an SVG version would be nice).--ragesoss 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Golbez 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support: clear, informative. Wouldn't mind losing the title though. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Wasp_morphology.png - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)