Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DNA Overview
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] An overview of DNA structure
This illustration is meant to give a general overview of what a section of DNA looks like. It is not (yet) intended to be a "Structure of DNA" diagram, I'm still working on that one. What do you think about the general style of the presentation so far?
- Nominate and support. - (Actually, I'm not nominating anything of course, just asking for feedback ;-). Mstroeck 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- A good graphic, but the format is a bit awkward, high and narrow. can you shorten it a bit? As is, it would have to be very small in an article (I've changed the size from 300 to 100 px, more like it would be in an article - you can revert that if you wish.) The text is vertical, hard to read, and totally unreadable in ANY thumbnail below 300 px. How about turning the whole image 90 degrees? --Janke | Talk 08:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about image size. Actually, something can be said for having a rather large image. For example, I think it doesn't look out of place with 270px over at the DNA article, but that's up to personal preference, really. Mstroeck 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- He could shorten it (but not shorter as to not be able to see at least ONE turn) but it would not be as representative as this one where EACH groove and chain can be seen making a "turn" (FOUR total). This type of DNA image is ALWAYS vertical - it is an unwritten rule. To get the "feeling" i have this image for ya :).
Your model looks awesome, i didn't know people make this kind of stuff - live steam locomotive scale models. -- Boris 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- He could shorten it (but not shorter as to not be able to see at least ONE turn) but it would not be as representative as this one where EACH groove and chain can be seen making a "turn" (FOUR total). This type of DNA image is ALWAYS vertical - it is an unwritten rule. To get the "feeling" i have this image for ya :).
-
-
- Hi Boris and Janke, thanks for your comments. I also think that the format of the picture can not be changed. The informational value would suffer a lot. I want to show the minor and major grooves and the fact that they repeat periodically. I do not want another neat and tidy but inacurrate picture of DNA. Apart from that, I don't really know what to do with the backbone. People have told me that they prefer leaving the phosphates out and only showing the ribbon. I think that's a particularly stupid way to introduce DNA to people who know nothing about it. The fact that each half of the double-helix is a single molecule is lost when you don't show the sugars/phosphates and how they "connect" the nucleobases. As it is, some atoms "stick out" of the ribbon, which might not be ideal. What do you think? Mstroeck 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that color and shading are well-used and the result is pleasing to the eye. I agree that the annotation text is too small, a bit distracting. My suggestion would be three images side by side; 1) a ribbon that is the envelope of the molecule, more or less, with the minor and major gooves (opposite sides) different colors. 2) The present illustration with no text annotations, but with a scale bar. 3) The schematic backbones replaced by atoms, i.e., the molecule in all its splendor.
This would make a striking .gif animation rotating about its long axis. That is something a paper encyclopedia cannot do. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- On the other hand, 304 articles in enwiki link to this illustration. That must make it one of the most used illustration in wikipedia. It is hard to think that there is very much wrong with the illustration as it stands. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Seconder:
