I'm not clear whether a picture of a child's genitalia is legitimate or not - you appear to be more familiar with the way it works than me; perhaps you should ask whether images of children's genitalia are acceptable on Wikipedia.

I object to it for several reasons.  The is first that it is an image of a child's genitalia (albeit deceased), which is not usually accepted online for non-intersex children, and I am not sure why intersex childrens' genitals should be an exception to this.  Second, the example in question is quite an extreme case, where the child had a number of complications which meant it did not survive, and the genital ambiguity was one aspect of those complications.  I would worry that people seeking information and support would find this paper quite shocking, and as you are no doubt aware, it is an extremely rare case which has limited bearing on the experiences of the majority of intersex people.  So, is it a representative image (and link) on intersex?  No, it is not.  So, why is it there?  Finally, I resist the reduction of intersex issues to simply being about genital ambiguity - just as I resist the reduction to XY/XX chromosomes and all that entails.  I am sure that there would be better, fully consensual, images available if required - although I am not sure why they are necessary.  People who are involved with intersex in some way will not find it informative or helpful, so the only purpose appears to be either for 'shock' value or voyeurism, neither of which seem valid reasons for having the picture on Wikipedia.