Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:C4 photosynthesis is really complicated.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:C4 photosynthesis is really complicated.svg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2013 at 22:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Some plants such as corn have evolved some modifications to photosynthesis, increasing its efficiency by separating the light reactions (oxygen generating phase) from the dark reactions (sugar generating phase). One modification is C4 photosynthesis (The NADP-ME version is depicted here). C4 photosynthesis is complicated. I made this poster to make it slightly more understandable. :)
Sources
[1], [2], [3], [4], File:C4 photosynthesis NADP-ME type.svg, and the C4 photosynthesis article.
A simpler version, without scary chemistry can be found at File:C4 photosynthesis is less complicated.svg. All by Kelvinsong — Kelvinsong (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)- Support --MehdiTalk 05:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Stas1995 (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Earth100 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support High E.V. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Honestly spoken: Yes, this picture is on the one hand too complicated (much text, not very clearly represented - one have too look very closely), but on the other side it is not sufficient presented in a biochemical way, e. g. the PEPCK- and the ME-NAD-typ are neglected impo). What we have here is maybe a good picture for a poster, but I think for a wiki-article it is not suitable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I focused on the NADP-ME type, because in previous diagrams, whenever I tried to do a "generic" version of a pathway, it never turned out well. This time I just did corn NADP-ME because corn is the most well known C4 plant (other than crabgrass) and the NADP-ME version is the simplest. Also, pictures on Commons are not just for wikipedia articles. That is an EnFP criterion, not a Commons FP one.—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do not get me wrong: I like your pictures, that is true. You have well proven your outstanding craftsmanship of difficult pictures. But this one goes a little bit too far in a certain way as mentioned, maybe even a little bit too simplified and hence misleading. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, do you want me to throw in all the other small details like the pyrophosphate, aspartate, etc? Maybe throw in the PEPCK and NADME mitochondrion in those variant pathways too? Because what happens when you do that is you start to get a lot of asterices and a lot of branching and sidenotes. Take a look at a standard picture of a plant or animal cell in a textbook. There is a lot of diversity in cell types, but you don't see acrosomes or T-tubules or statoliths in those pictures, because you illustrate the simplest version of a structure or pathway that exists.—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
