Commons:Valued image candidates/Aphrodita aculeata (Sea mouse).jpg/Archive of previous reviews

Comment I tried to look for other competing images on Commons, and it is a mess! There is both a species gallery Aphrodita aculeata and a category Category:Aphrodita aculeata. The species gallery is not linked properly to the taxonomic tree, and it is my feeling that the category links to far up in the hierarchy. Í think all images of this species should be added to the Aphrodita aculeata species gallery, which should have its subcat created and properly hooked up with the taxo tree, cf. COM:TOL. The existing species category should be deleted I think. That will make it much easier to evaluate this nomination. -- Slaunger 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories fixed, following the taxonomy given at Wikispecies:Aphrodita aculeata (some of the Commons cats have text which slightly conflicts, but that's a more general issue, not a miscategorization of this image). The species gallery Aphrodita aculeata has been recategorized, too. --MichaelMaggs 07:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for fixing the aforementioned mess. I think this image is the best of an individual of Aphrodita aculeata. It would have been better if the species was photographed in its natural environment and not in a zoo, but that is a completely different business. I do not know if the sand environment shown is a natural one for this animal? The closest VIC competitor to this image is IMO this photo by Lycaon, which is a high quality photo of the ~~bellow~~dorsal side of an individual taken out of its natural environment. That photo has its own qualities in showing the mouth and anal regions and it gives some ideas of how it crawls on the surface, but it does not illustrate well how this hairy species looks in water. This is much better illustrated with the VIC here. Maybe Lycaons photo could also be a VIC of a more specialized topic dealing with details of the anatomy of this species. -- Slaunger 22:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe sand is it's natural environment. It likes to dig itself down under the surface. --MichaelMaggs 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, Michael's picture is by far the best one on commons, though it does not show all aspects of the animal. Mine is showing the dorsal side (not the ventral side!), is high res but is of mediocre quality and not in its natural environment (though that IMO is not a must for VI). Indeed there is scope for two or three images of this species as VI (natural environment, dorsal and ventral anatomical). Zoo/aquarium pictures are the only ones possible for life animals as they live partially buried in the sand in the (often) murky waters of the North Sea. Lycaon 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems reasonable, and thank you for enlightening me, Hans. So I take it, it is a support vote from you too?-- Slaunger 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support yep. ;-) Lycaon 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support -> Promoted. -- Slaunger 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]