Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Budgerigar diagram-labeled.svg

Budgerigar diagram

Reason: Good SVG, which we rarely have for nominations, so I thought this budgerigar diagram would be a good nom.
Articles this image appears in: Budgerigar
Creator: ZooFari

Support as nominator --Zoo Fari 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The text is pretty small in the thumbnail version present in the article. Can you increase the size a bit? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Still not good enough for display here, but good enough for the article. That's as big as I can make it to prevent crowdness. Zoo Fari 03:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. Illustrates the subject in a way that provides oodles of encyclopedic value.Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Neutral, pending clarification. I'm no longer convinced that this has been labeled properly. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See description page for references. Zoo Fari 00:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spelling should be "cheek" with a double e. Generally a bit low on useful information, e.g. sexual parts not labelled (cloaca). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling fixed. I've added it as "Vent" based on other sources, but it's the same thing as a cloaca. Zoo Fari 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless there is a separate size given for captive individuals then I think the scale is off. The article says: "Budgerigars in their natural-habitats of Australia average 18 cm (7 in) long". This is 8.5in vertically implying 9.5in or so along the body. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used relative size both inches and centimeters. Zoo Fari 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quite low on encyclopedic value IMO. Nothing is labeled that I wouldn't be able to figure out for myself easily enough. I also don't see the need for a labeled illustration, a labeled photograph would be more informative (not that I'm saying we need a labeled anything). Finally, the illustration is merely decent and lack "wow" power to be featured.--Remurmur (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The label line for the ear coverlets seems to be thicker than the other lines. Also, we probably shouldn't be using inches on an anatomy diagram. Otherwise looks great. Kaldari (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Zoo Fari 00:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, given the large number of unresolved concerns above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Struck because immediate problems have been addressed, more EV added. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note more labels added. Zoo Fari 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm Wing pigments? That's not an anatomical feature. I can only guess that maybe you abbreviated too much? A pigment is colored chemical. I'm not even sure that the wing pigments would be any different from pigments anywhere else on the body - it implies that the color would also be different. If that's what you meant to say, I'd like to see a reference, as my experience says that the colors of the wing are the same as the back of the head and neck. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I thought it was redundant anyways. I used "Secondary flight feathers" in place. Zoo Fari 02:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not loving this at all. Don't like the diagram itself, and I'm not seeing much value in the annotations. Compared to another anatomy diagram or another parrot, this is severely lacking. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bird anatomy diagram. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ Milburn: A snail tends to have more exotic features especially since your example includes the interior as well. I don't understand your point in the second example of the lorikeet, but I suppose this diagram could have more. @ Papa Lima Whiskey: Thanks for sharing the diagram. It's unsourced though but I would definitely include some of those labels. Some are redundant though (like the belly) so that's why my image seems to lack more features than the bird anatomy one. Zoo Fari 22:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would prefer "abdomen" over "belly", although I agree it's not an absolutely necessary label - neither so is "flank", probably, but I think there's some artistic freedom in those kinds of things. What I do wonder, though, is whether "visible" is redundant. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well there's "hidden" feathers beneath the second layer. Zoo Fari 15:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]