Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Telomere quadruplex

Telomere quadruplex

Reason: A particularly beautiful molecule in its own right, but also a form of DNA that is little-known.
Articles this image appears in: DNA and Telomere
Creator: User:TimVickers
Nominator: TimVickers

Support — TimVickers 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose kind of cool, but technically bad and as I'm sure others will tell you it's way under the size recommendation --⁪froth^{T C} 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, high-res version uploaded. TimVickers 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose for a CG image like this, could you animate it a bit to show the complexities? It's a bit hard to see without scrutiny right now. If it moved I'd change my vote. --Iriseyes 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, one of the pages it's used in already has an animated image and another would push the page well over the size limit. TimVickers 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral weak oppose - I could be convinced to support, but it would need a bit of modification, particularly a key as to what colors are what elements. Debivort 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I'm fine with respect to the "plasticiness" but would really like to see the elements annotated in the image itself. Debivort 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. TimVickers 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think yellow is phosphorous. Debivort 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it is! Somehow my fingers thought otherwise, corrected. TimVickers 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Guide to uploading images recommends not putting text in images. TimVickers 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think that the key should be made as part of the image, rather than within the caption. If you are going to leave it in the caption however, the names of the elements should at least be capitalised. Additionally, can this be 'accurate' if Hydrogen atoms are omitted? Krowe 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed it should be included in the image. FWIW, not showing the hydrogens is a standard viewing format for these kinds of diagrams. Debivort 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removing the hydrogens is standard, as they usually cannot be seen in X-ray crystallography anyway. I'm sorry, I don't understand why the types of atoms should be capitalised, these are just nouns. Could you explain this comment a bit more? I'm puzzled. TimVickers 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that text should be on the image itself, as that makes it more difficult to use the image in new contexts or in other languages. On that note, since you've released it PD, maybe upload it to commons? Opabinia regalis 06:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 copy uploaded to commons. TimVickers 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Oppose~~ Neutral Better with the fog. Looks over-exposed. I would prefer a less "plastic" material, lower contrast and maybe some softer shadow? (GI anyone?) Also in the centre it doesn't show the structure/layers of the elements clearly. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried generating the picture from several angles, but unfortunately from other viewpoints you cannot see the symmetry of the bases around the center. This makes for a much less striking image. TimVickers 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. Fascinating, educational, visually appealing. Topic of telomeres in interesting in itself. Of course it can be accurate if hydrogens are ommitted! It's a model. The novelty, visual appeal and educational value outweigh any technical problems. --Coppertwig 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (especially version 2) I really like this image; it's an eye-catching view of a beautiful molecule. To address the 'depth' issue - have you thought about rendering it with depth cuing fog? Opabinia regalis 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this version an improvement? I some added fog to help make it less "contrasty" and add depth. TimVickers 04:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this one's better; the base stacking in the center is much clearer. Opabinia regalis 06:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support version 2. I suppose it fits requirements but I won't pretend that the subject is signficant to me --⁪froth^T 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this be better as a PNG?

Mahahahaneapneap 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You lose much of the shadowing and sense of depth in PNG, that is better for simple diagrams that don't try to be photo-realistic. TimVickers 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't lose things simply by saving it as png. PNG supports 24bit colour is well you know. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fiddled with PNG a bit, does this version look OK to you? TimVickers 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still stand by my comment about a less plastic material, like maybe a lower hardness and less frontal illumination? Also visible aliasing, maybe more oversampling will help? Otherwise it's as good as it gets (NOT equivalent to Mr. Cat Poop in Chinese). --antilived^{T | C | G} 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - looks very badly "computer generated" and not natural, really takes away from the composition for me -137.222.10.67 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, but could you be more specific? What features are missing to make this a "natural" image of a DNA molecule? TimVickers 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]