Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nephtys hombergii

Nephtys hombergii

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2010 at 10:12:17 (UTC)

Original - Nephtys hombergii is a species of marine catworm.

Reason

Another strong image of an animal the kind of which we don't see much on FPC, identified by an expert. A strong addition to both articles in which it is used.

Articles in which this image appears

Nephtys, Nephtyidae

FP category for this image

Animals/Others

Creator

Hans Hillewaert

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, going to have to go against this one. Image quality is quite good, though getting marginal in size. However I have EV concerns. There's no article on the species, and the genus and family articles are undeveloped stubs. However what little information I can glean is not well illustrated by the image, the family article stating "...polychaetes with a small pentagonal prostomium with two pairs of small antennae...with a strong muscular proboscis, armed with two well developed jaws." So maybe I'm hard of seeing, but I can't determine the pentagonal prostomium, I can't see the antennae (I can't say for sure, but I think we may be looking at the ventral surface of the head), I can't make out the proboscis, and there's not enough info to determine if I'm seeing the jaws. Too many unknowns compromising EV IMO. --jjron (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You're concerned that this is not the species in question? That this is a damaged specimen? What are you saying here? Would improvement of the articles (and/or a species article being written) help with your concerns here? J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I'm happy to take on good faith that this is the species represented. What I'm saying is that I can't correlate the info in the articles with the photo. As I say I'm not even sure whether I'm looking at the dorsal or ventral surface, but I suspect it's the ventral... And given I can't see any sign of the antennae for example, it may be damaged, or they may just be obscured, or I may be looking in the wrong spot or for the wrong thing. Maybe the photographer could flesh out a better description for the photo, which may help - but given it was taken in 2005, maybe not. --jjron (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This one is hard to for me and I actually wish the image were larger. It's hard at full size to make out the animal's details, to get a good look at the segments. This picture is practically like just looking at a white shoelace, but I'm not sure if that opinion is fair the animal.. Was the animal still living or a preserved specimen when photoed? --I'ḏ♥One 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I couldn't honestly say. I assumed it was live when the photo was taken. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It looks preserved, and color bleached like old preserved specimens get. — raekyT 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Withdrawn, clearly misjudged this one :) J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)