Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anatomy of a mosquito larva

Anatomy of a mosquito larva

 * Reason:As per here, nominating larva diagram of Culex. As before, the same reasoning stands: Detailed, highly encyclopedic SVG diagram of a Culex mosquito. Similar in style to the current FPs of the dragonfly, wasp and ant.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mosquito, Culex
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
 * Creator:LadyofHats

This is something that, in theory, I would be more than happy to support- some issues just need clarifying. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Anxietycello (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments: Ok, a few things-
 * It's not immediately clear what the side view is of- personally, I think a full length side view would be great, so you can get an idea of shape.
 * there is no extra information on the full side view. normally to prepare the larva for observation one would cut just arround the 7th section of the abdomen and then twist it to the side. like it is explained [here]. a full side view wouldnt add any new information to the diagram, it would only make it bigger and more complex without being helpfull.
 * Why abbreviate to "Ant." on "Ant. hair"?
 * Fixed this one.
 * Why does every mention of hair apart from one refer to it as "hair", while "caudal hairs" has the s?
 * Depending on the species of mosquito there would be a diferent amount and lenght of hairs. so i use the general term "HAIR" not as singular but as group. i changed the caudal hairs, the diference comes while adding the term in the commons FP promotion.
 * "Mental Plate" and "Spiracular Valves"- random capitals?
 * fixed
 * Some annotation lines (I'm sorry, I can't actually remember what they're called) are curved ("lateral hair") while others ("caudal hairs") appear to have sharp corners- can we have some consistency?
 * i rounded all lines ends, but the caudal hairs are sharp more thick hairs so the sharp end is more acurate in their case ( plus those are no lines but a figure)
 * No, I don't want the actual hairs rounded, I want the line pointing to them rounded- the corners on the line are sharp, as they are on some of the others. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was also going to mention an apparent inconsistency between dotted and filled (again, I'm sure there's a better name for that...) lines- for intance, "Ant. hair" and "Spiracular Valves" respectively. However, I think that's a problem with the way the file is sized rather than a problem with its creation?
 * increased gap in pointed lines.
 * Done-LadyofHats (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent illustration IMO -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, for now. Waiting on responses to my comments above- if those things are the kind of little errors I think they are, they should not be slipping through on a FP. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support, most fixes done. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support now, given fixes. Very encyclopedic and clear illustration.  Jujutacular  T · C 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Excellent illustration, but not a fan of the weird pseudo-dotted lines. Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 06:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)