Commons:Valued image candidates/Leaf-mimic katydid (Pycnopalpa bicordata).jpg

Leaf-mimic katydid (Pycnopalpa bicordata).jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Charles (talk) on 2015-11-16 16:12 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Pycnopalpa bicordata (Leaf-mimic katydid)
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)  Oppose - No Wikilinks (or other links) in description field. Martinvl (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Rule laid down by itself, without arbitration community. ( See here) --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 18:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)  Support I often disagree with Charlesjsharp, but I see nothing in the rules that impose a link; just a good description. English is not even compulsory, just advisable. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment @Martinvl: This negative vote is an abuse. Please remove it or give a valid reason.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment May I draw attention to Valued Image Criteria, point 4.2 which states "along with any relevant auxiliary information. Links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere) should be included to assist with verification." In normal English the word "should" means that while it is not obligatory [to include links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere)], there needs to be a very good reason not to do so. In this case a link to :en:Leaf-mimic katydid is appropriate. That link gives a further reference to a text book and also to the French language article. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment @Martinvl: I think you may be confused. For an uncommon insect like this, it will be impracticable to link to an authoritative reference source. The link you suggest to :en:Leaf-mimic katydid is meaningless, as I put the image there myself! But my images always have links to the relevant English Wikipedia article where an editor could start his research into whether I have got the identification correct. And I can tell you that there are no 100% reliable animal photo identification databases anywhere. Specialists like myself spend a lot of time trying to ensure we get the species and sub-species correct and our efforts are then used to improve Wikipedia and become part of other databases. I get about 1 in 100 wrong. Databases such as Funet (butterflies) and avibase (birds) are very useful, but riddled with errors. Just to give you an example: I have some Tobago gecko images up for VI right now. Some months ago, the world expert on these geckos questioned my identification and geolocation. After an exchange of data, he has agreed I am correct and two of my images are the first ever sightings on the island of Little Tobago. So might I request that you remove your oppose on this nomination please. Charles (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment @Charlesjsharp: Para 4.2 of the VI criteria starts with the words "There should be a full and informative description of what the image depicts, along with any relevant auxiliary information." What I see is a very good image (probably taken close up) of a creature, possible a mite of one description or another, but this is an area about which I know nothing. Where can I find out about that creature? You have said that the Wikipedia entries are not very helpful [in respect of the creature depicted in your image]. I checked Wikipedia for myself and I agree with you on that point. This puts the onus on you to tell everybody what this creture is (not just its name). They suggest Wikipedia, but in this case Wikipedia is not much use, so what does it feed on? How big is it? Is it found anywhere apart from Trinidad? When was it first identified? Perhaps your description could include a reference to mites (if such a reference is appropriate). The Wikipedia article states that there are 48,200 known species of mite. Maybe a few lines to put your image into context with links to Wikipedia for generic words such as "mite" and "Trinidad" together with a reference to a scientific paper. I have taken the liberty of Wikilinking this file of yours. Your original description in that file was good (apart from one error that I corrected), just the Wikilinking was lacking. Martinvl (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC) If you seriously think a katydid might be a mite, may I suggest you leave assessing VI candidates of insects to others. And I have no responsibility/onus to improve any Wikipedia articles if I don't want to, so please do not suggest I do. Charles (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: This just proves my point - I don't know what a katydid is. The whole purpose of linking descriptions to other sources is so that people like myself can be shown where to look to find out more. Martinvl (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)  Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Result: 3 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)