Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Housefly anatomy-key.svg

Image:Housefly anatomy-key.svg, not featured

•  Info created by, uploaded and nominated by Al2 --Al2 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Info References http://www.infovisual.info and http://www.nku.edu, and others.--Al2 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Al2 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Petronas 08:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Support, lots of insects today. :) --Aqwis 11:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 Oppose per Adam Cuerden. --Aqwis 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note : please be very careful when using information from infovisual.info : I know this website can contain many mistakes, I have seen quite a few for ships and related topics. ut I don't know much about flies :-) le Korrigan →bla 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I always try to complement with other information such as glossaries and studies. --Al2 16:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Neutral - I would like to support this nomination but it needs some more detail and sophistication. For example, the depiction of the composite eye is a little too basic and other parts of the anatomy could be identified (in particular on the wing: basicosta, wing venation,...). BTW, the long veins in the wing reach the margin - Alvesgaspar 08:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Info I have uploaded a new version with more anatomical parts. The compound eye is now compound and I corrected the thing with the wing veins. --Al2 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Better now! But a little detail remains: the 4th and 5th long veins should reach the wing margin - Alvesgaspar 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Beyond silence 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Provisional  Support (I still have to scrutinize) Already a lot better. Lycaon 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Richard like Flies :) --85.181.6.212 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC) --Richard Bartz 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  Richard has to log in to vote ;-) Lycaon 14:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  :) --Richard Bartz 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose in strongest possible terms - The wing is misshapen (it should have a sort of lobe near the base, not just taper smoothly) and upside-down. Image:Musca.domestica.female.jpg The mouthparts are off; See [1] The halter is somewhat deformed, and (I think) a bit too far towards the abdominal end. Please realise this isn't your fault, but your sources were inaccurate, and without fixing it with better sources, this cannot be an FPC. Adam Cuerden 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --libertad0 ॐ 19:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Provisional  Oppose A picture like this must really be a lot of work, and it produces very high value. However, it really needs to be correct, and unless Adam Cuerdens issues can be resolved, I think it should not be FP. --JDrewes 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• I don't like opposing something so much better than I can do, but I'm going to have to. Provisional  Oppose as per JDrewes until Adam Cueden's issues are resolved. Sorry, Ben Aveling 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Info New version uploaded. I have created a new wing structure based on other resources [2] [3] [4]. For graphical purposes, the wing position whould be as it is, considering that the vein named "costa" in all wing structures goes upwards Wing venation. I re-drew the mouth parts and positioned the haltere. As this is a scheme or diagram to depict the fly parts, it would not be similar to any specific fly. --Al2 13:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The wings are displayed that way in order to make the wings of various insects consistent: basically, in a dragon fly, the wings are like this, as seen from above (You'll have to look at the source in the edit field, and I've left out the second pair of wings)

     O

COSTA | COSTA \_____|_____/

     |

But a fly holds its wings something like this, as seen from above (actually,t hey tend to overlap a bit, but this will do.

  O

C// \\C O | | O S X S T / \ T A/ \A

</nowiki>

The fly's wings are generally found at rest atop its back, parallel to the surface it's standing on. You might be able to fix it by moving the abdomen to the front and adding slight foreshortening, so that we're seeing the wing from below. But this is unacceptable and unreal. The costa is traditionally shown at the top when showing just the wing, because of dragonflies and the like.

By the way, I'm sitting an exam on this sort of thing tomorrow =) Adam Cuerden 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and will fix it. thanks --Al2 12:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 Info New version of the file, following recommendations by Adam Cuerden, good luck with the exam! --Al2 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking a lot better. Two things: the mouthparts and other parts of the head are still slightly off - the labrum and hypopharynx are missing, for one - see [5] or ,[6]) - though note there's a bit of cheating going on there: They've been spread out so they can be seen, whereas, in reality, they're part of the food canal. Also, the accuracy of the labelling of the mouthparts are a bit off - the pseudotracheæ are grooves in the labellar lobes, for instance. If you want, I could e-mail you some textbook scans. The haltere is generally a creamy white - which would also make it show up better, and it'd probably be best to move the abdomen (not the thorax) to a higher layer so that it blocks the tiny bit of the wing that's now in front of it, which would help the perspective. The colouration of the body is technically a bit off, but I wouldn't worry much about that. It's getting there. Oh, also, if you wanted, I know the names of the veins in the wing. Adam Cuerden 10:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Scans would be great (gmail:fiestoforo). Thanks for the information! I've noticed that models in these diagrams and pictures are altered somehow to depict its particular better. Not sure if that should apply in these kinds of diagrams. --Al2 11:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)