Talk:Sinotaia aeruginosa

Images
Hello User:Elmidae, why is not image of dam suitable for the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellamya_aeruginosa&type=revision&diff=704819325&oldid=704799835 I found no reason in the Manual of style WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Especially when there are images of Gulf of Odessa, Zostera marina and common roach in the Theodoxus fluviatilis good article, images of Pellia epiphylla and Killarney National Park in the Kerry slug good article and image of Conus textile and tributyltin in the Laevistrombus canarium featured article. --Snek01 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Two points:


 * a) With one exception, the examples you cite are illustrations of specific items relevant to the subject. A specific predator, a specific species of plant known to impact the subject (note, it's not 'a picture of the national park' - it's about the plant in the image), a specific chemical important in the subject's ecotoxicology. These are relevant in the terms of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Your dam image is just A Dam, with no particular relevance to the species (unless there is a source stating that the B. aeruginosa pop is thought to be impacted by that particluar dam?). It's about as sensible as putting an image of a random car into Moose. Compare the type of image used there. And damming isn't even a section-level topic in the article, but a half-sentence general mention.


 * b) The better developed with images an article is, the more tolerance there is for the occasional 'window-dressing' image. I'd take issue with the Gulf of Odessa one - that's just fluff, and only works because there are many more relevant pictures in the article already. Images just like text sections get their relevance weighting from what else is in the article. For a text example, consider an article about a type of timber. If it's short and only says that this comes from tree X and grows in Y, then a paragraph mentioning Grand Hall Z that is timbered in this wood is undue - it makes it appear as if this is more important to the subject than it actually is. If, on the other hand, it's a comprehensive overview of varieties, origins, material chararcteristics, and history, then a mention of particularly good examples of use as material fits in. TL:DR, there aren't enough relevant images in the article yet to sustain one of doubtful relevance.


 * My two cents. Other's opinions welcome, naturally.-- Elmidae (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It was not just a dam, but the dam in the area, where the species occur; showing it as an example of habitat fragmentation by damming and also showing the species' habitat: the river (where the species live). You are right that this particular dam is not mentioned in the references. It is completely comparable with the "Moose and reflection" image showing just species' habitat of your Moose example Moose. If we consider any image of habitat relevant to the article of the certain species, then the image is completely OK (and then it can stay in the article until it will be replaced with a better one). I understand your reasoning, but I think, you were too strict. - Another example (hopefully a good one) of picture of dam in the snail article is Utah roundmouth snail. --Snek01 (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Reading through Sanmenxia Dam, I have to admit that you have a point here - that dam is apparently a prominent instance of siltation problems, in noted B. aeruginosa habitat. I would however suggest making that relevance quite clear in the image caption then - something like "The degradation of B. aeruginosa habitat by damming (as through the Sanmenxia Dam on the Yellow River) is considered a threat to the species." -- Elmidae  (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re the other images: the elk article has 32 images - see window-dressing argument above; and the roundmouth snail occupies a handful of sites, a specific one of which is pictured. I strongly object to the notion that we can "consider any image of habitat relevant to the article of the certain species".