Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Mushroom cap morphology

Reason

High quality, informative diagram used in mushroom hunting for over three years. Large size, well illustrated and self-explanatory to the extent that a novice suddenly has the basics of mushroom identification after viewing. I doubt it is of featured quality, as it is a png image as opposed to an svg, and deals only with mushrooms, as opposed to all larger fungi species.

Articles this image appears in

Mushroom hunting (note it is also the basis of Template:Mycomorphbox, used on hundreds of mushroom pages.)

Creator

Debivort

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I like it, but there's possibly an issue that no source references are provided on the image page. --jjron (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is it you want verifying? Most of it is in the books around me, one or two I can have a hunt for online? J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point is that a reference needs to be cited for this. Your book or books would be suitable for doing so. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep; as for articles, diagrams such as this are generally expected to provide references back to reputable published sources (whether print or web). See Wikipedia:Citing sources. It's really meant to be what the creator used as references, not just what you've got laying around (I'm not sure about the validity of you providing 'sources' for someone else's diagram, but I guess it's possible). --jjron (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Compare it to an article- we can turn up and add references to material, even if we don't know where the author found the material. The primary purpose of adding a source is so that the information can be verified, and someone other than the author adding a source is acceptable for that, surely? I will add some sources when I find some time. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing, but was just wondering about the implications on an image using different refs from the actual source. --jjron (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• References added for all gill and cap shapes, apart from flat, which is so obvious that no one seems to bother defining it. It's still used a lot- see Google Results for just one mushroom site. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That'll do me. I'd really prefer a SVG, but this isn't really featured picture candidates so I guess it doesn't matter so much. I wouldn't worry about a reference for flat (as you say, its obvious) Noodle snacks (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per above discussions. I assume you checked all the spelling and correct use of terminology while referencing - nothing jumps out as wrong, but I'm not familiar with all the terms. --jjron (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, yeah. Everything looks good to me. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: With the references in, I see no reason why i should not support this pic. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mushroom cap morphology2.png --jjron (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]