Talk:Toothed seadevil

Image is misleading
From a Google images websearch, I get many images claiming to be a Toothed seadevil. One of them is. Note how it looks nothing like the rudimentary sketched drawing that has been re-added to the article in December 2013, after my initial removal of a worse image in October 2013.

Pinging author of image. Unless a reliable source can be found, I will remove this image again as original research. Mamyles (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about my drawing is "original research"? I based it off of other pictures of Neoceratias.  Is it because it's not a photorealistic photocopy of a photograph of a badly preserved specimen?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it's "original research"? Is it because it's not photorealism?  Is it because you think I'm a crappy artist?  Is it because it's not sourced, even though Wikipedia does not require pictures to have sources?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, can you please explain, ? I really don't appreciate other editors insulting and snubbing my contributions through accusations of original research, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My original comment sounds more accusatory and aggressive than I intended - I apologize for the tone. Indeed, this image is significantly more detailed and better looking than what I remember from the original sketch on October 2013, and is more detailed than many other illustrations of this species across the web.
 * I am a relative lay person on this subject, I admit, and this further confirms it. After digging into the scientific literature and existing images, this is consistent with the species. Some of my original concerns from October 2013 were over-pronounced outer teeth, an incorrectly shaped anal fin, and a lack of detail. My concerns for the current version were similar, especially relating to the head and gill shape. These concerns can be dismissed as individual specimen differences, especially since the specimen linked above appears dead on close examination.
 * Thank you for your quick and detailed response to my concerns. I've learned a lesson here, and in the future I will engage with contributors more closely before questioning content in topics of which I am not an expert. If I might suggest one improvement, it would be to add as a reliable source the Atlas of Living Australia website, which contains images and descriptive data to confirm your sketch, which will resolve my concerns outlined above. Mamyles (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My primary references I used included Oceanic Anglerfishes: Extraordinary Diversity in the Deep Sea by Theodore W. Pietsch, and Deep Atlantic by Richard Ellis.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)