Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose Because barnacles live and feed under water, the image, which was taken at low tide above the water cannot be the most valued image of the organism IMO. All barnacles are closed and IMO it is impossible to figure out how they really look and feed, when they are covered by water.--Mbz1 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 InfoThese organsisms live only on the upper shore line and spend far the greatest part of their lives uncovered, as shown. The rock on which I found these was above the waterline for, I would estimate, 20 hours out of 24. --MichaelMaggs 09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Info and
 Comment As explained in Wikipedia article "Barnacles are exclusively marine, and tend to live in shallow and tidal waters, typically in erosive settings." IMO it reallly does not matter how many hours they spend above or below the water. It matters that the most important things as reproduction and feeding they're doing while they are under the water. That's why I do not think that the nominated image is a good illustration of organism.--Mbz1 13:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tend to agree with Mila. Tomorrow, when I get access to another PC, I think I will upload a still photo taken around the time of this barnackle movie as that shows how the barnacles filter the shallow water and let it compete with this one in an MVR. It does not have the same image quality as I recall but is perhaps more instructive (we'll see). -- Slaunger 01:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, but what I have is another species (Semibalanus balanoides) so it cannot compete within the stated scope. But I do think such a kind of shot of more valuable. Therefore, if you get the chace to photograph this species again I think you should try to catch it while they filter the water. That can be done without getting your camera wet. -- Slaunger 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Question I am pretty ignorant on the subject of identification of barnacles. For my image I seem to recall that Lycaon helped me out based on the location and the image. This makes me think: Is there anyway one can make a visual distinction between, e.g., your barnacle species as compared to the Semibalanus balanoides photo I have referred to. It is the scope which worries me; is it too narrow to really warrant a VI for the specific species as a photo? Is it sufficiently visually distinct from other species to make sense? Another thing I thought about is that perhaps the scope should rather reflect the inactive state of the barnacles when they are dry and closed. I do not know what that is called in English? "Hibernating barnacles?". I'll post a message on Lycaons talk page to hear what our marine biologist has to say about this... -- Slaunger 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support Chthamalidae are quite distinct from Balanidae in the form and position of their plates (carina and rostrum specifically)[1]. AFAIK this is the only image of a member of the Chthamalidae on commons. Scope is IMO sufficient. A feeding barnacle could have a different scope (e.g. feeding barnacle(s)). I only changed the scope slightly, because the name was wrong (fixed the category too). Lycaon 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Question Thank you for pointing the differences betwen Chthamalidae and Balanidae out. I see there is a clear difference. They are also quite dissimilar from a taxonomic point of view. However, I am still wondering about the identifiablity to the species level. I mean if another image were nominated for VIC for another species within the same genus, say Chthamalus X. Would the reviewers have any change to make a visual distinction between Chthamalus X and Chthamalus stellatus? If not I think the scope is too narrow and should be broadened up to the genus of family level. -- Slaunger 10:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced by your reason to support the image. As we could see from this image by Slaunger it is possible to show barnacles in a different stages from completely clossed to completely opened in the same image, which is much more encyclopedic and much more valuable. IMO we do not need a different scope for(e.g. feeding barnacle(s)). --Mbz1 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although it is interesting to discuss how you can improve images of barnacles and make them more encyclopedic, I think it is not that relevant for the assessment of this particular candidate. The first question to answer is if the scope is of relevance for WMF projects, and I think the answer is yes (always the case for living organisms - Wikispecies), although it may have to be widened to the genus or family level to make sense (as questioned above, is it visually distinct from other species in the same genus). For lower taxonomic levels a figure like in the link provided by Lycaon pinpointing the specific features of the taxon is really more relevant IMO. Does it illustrates the subject well? Yes, I think so. It is a high quality image where details of the (dry) species can be seen - a state within it is often found by humans. Can it be done better? Yes I think so, but VI is not really about whether it can be done better, but whether it is the best we have (and fulfills the criteria). If you manage to make a better photo of the species/genus/family you can let it compete with it in an MVR. That is why we have invented MVR. I do think a cross-taxon process scope like "Feeding barnackles" can be a relevant scope as well, as I guess there are commonalities in how barnackles feed in irrespective of the exact sub-order/family/genus/species. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though my opinion is that each species could have its own VI, in this case I don't know how to separate the different species of the genus Chthamalus (they occur worldwide). As we don't seem to have confirmed images of other species from the genus than the current C. stellatus, it may be appropriate to—for now—assign it to the scope Chthamalus (without the species epitheton). Concerning the feeding barnacle(s) scope, I think that could be a very valid one as it encompasses several species and genera (even families) and illustrates a behaviour typical of cirripeds, rather than a taxonomical scope. Lycaon (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Based on the explanation from Lycaon above I think the scope for the image is too narrow. If it was broadened to the genus level Chthamalus, I would be happy to support. I do think a VI within the present scope is possible, but that should probably not be a photo, instead a drawing or schematic illustration showing the characteristics of the particular species within the genus. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from Chthalamus stellatus to Chthamalus barnacles {{{3}}}
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
