Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cell membrane (diagrammatic)

Cell membrane (diagrammatic)



 * Reason:adding value to article and other reasons as given in | typical animal cell
 * Articles this image appears in:Cell membrane, Lipid bilayer
 * Creator: Mariana Ruiz


 * Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perfectionism alert. This is technically above average and a lot of work has clearly gone in, but the layout is cramped and confusing. Technical One of your cholesterol molecules projects into a protein. Are the glycolipids at the bottom (dark green) different from the top ones? (My school biology is very rusty). Is the glycoprotein also a type of globular protein? I know it's a pain, but it would be better if your helix overlapped correctly. None of the alpha-helices other than the front one has a coil showing, making their type ambiguous. Your 'phospholipid molecule' is at an odd angle, seemingly projecting into the plane of the image - you could move it out to the side. Layout Overall, the third dimension is adding confusion (and not much else). For example the 'phospholipid bilayer' could refer to the height or depth dimension (corner to corner is the only dimension that fits visually). The dimension line should not be at an angle. It may be better to stick to Transport, Integral, Globular, Peripheral and Surface proteins (or similar classification) in the image and make finer distinctions in the text. Two diagrams, one showing bilayer detail with a monolayer in the third dimension and another showing the bilayer as a 3D 'layer' with filaments, cytoplasm, and clear intracellular / extracellular separation would have improved my comprehension when I was doing biology. Dhatfield (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to technical concerns. Cholesterol can bind to proteins covalently (e.g. hedgehog protein). Each leaflet can have a different glycolipid composition, as well as phospholipid composition (see Flippase). A large fraction of membrane proteins are glycoproteins, globular or no. Agree re the helix looking clunky, but overall it looks technically good to me, though it might be nice to show more features, such as lipid rafts. de Bivort 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we assume that a student knows about covalent cholesterol - protein bonding and variable leaflet lipid composition before looking at this image and therefore understands all of its nuances? In my opinion if it is impossible to tell whether there is bonding (never mind a change in protein composition), or if the author just accidentally overlapped the two, there's something wrong with the image. Same argument holds for the glycoproteins. Dhatfield (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Made a new version to address my main objections. Still needs minor work on colours, layout, spacing, alignment, overlap of proteins. Since the source is in question (and therefore all derivatives), I am going to hold on working on this further until status is clarified. Dhatfield (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 *  weak oppose because of cramped composition. de Bivort 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. One solution to the cramped composition would be expanding the image and having the labels not be placed on the illustration. Nautica Shad es  00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Dhatfield edit is nice in principle, but I'm not sure that the zooming is sufficiently clear. I prefer traditional zoom boxes. No need for us to re-invent substitute the wheel. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspend Not sure what a 'traditional zoom box' looks like, an example would be very useful. None the less, I am suspending work and think that the candidate should be suspended. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will assume that in matters of copyleft on WP one is guilty until proven innocent. Dhatfield (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Plant_cell_structure_svg.svg, a Featured Picture, is under the same threat of summary deletion, as are many of LadyofHats (Mariana Ruiz) other contributions, for example Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg a FP, Image:Average prokaryote cell- en.svg, a FP, Image:Animal cell structure.svg, the FPC below...
 * The message is "This file is missing source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless the source is given, the file will be deleted." [my emphasis] This message can only be generated by using the file as a source in DerivativeFX. This information appears nowhere on the description page or anywhere else that I can find. In each case Mariana lists the source as "Self-made" or "Self-made using Adobe Illustrator." Dhatfield (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Traditional zoombox": Image:Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example zoom.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there are reference for verifiability. LadyOfHats makes great SVGs but they need some sourcing so that they can be verified for use in articles.  SVG diagrams need that. gren グレン 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unclear whether you are referring to verification of accuracy (citation of a source that could potentially be covered by copyright) or verification of there existing a free license source as per Commons:Incomplete license. Speedy deletion is very different from a FPC oppose vote, the latter being the same as would apply to FAC text lacking citation. See the Wikimedia Village pump for a discussion of free license sourcing requirements. Dhatfield (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a bug and is now fixed, thanks to Jarekt and Luxo. Dhatfield (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit 3 uploaded Standard zoom boxes tend to obscure the labels, but if there is a consensus to change to those, I'll give it another try. Dhatfield (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose There are only unsaturated tails on the phospholipids, for a reduced structure diagram of a cell membrane's lipid bilayer there should be one unsaturated and one saturated tail on each phospholipid.  Also, they're usually shown kinking outward, not inward.  --Blechnic (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The tail on the left is saturated, the one on the right is unsaturated - that's what I intended to show as per Image:Phosphatidylcholine.png. It has hydrogens consistently shown all the way down, so why does it appear unsaturated to you? Kinking is easy, but I'd like to clarify basic structure. Dhatfield (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about what we're voting on now. Is it Edit 3 that is being considered?  Then my comment goes to the phospholipids on the lower left--although often shown like this in illustrations, they should be shown with the unsaturated fatty acid tail kinked and making space, like the cholesterol, while the saturated fatty acid tail allows for close packing.  Also the cholesterol appears to have a hydrophilic head, it should just be a cholesterol, you could bring it forward, or make it higher with that head missing.  The hydrophobic tail label appears to apply only to the unsaturated fatty acid, it should apply to both fatty acids, and probably you could label by running a line right below the glycerol to make it clear that hydrophobic tail is both fatty acids.  --Blechnic (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 01:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)