Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png

File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel photo.png, featured

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2009 at 16:05:36

•  Info created by Dcrjsr - uploaded by Dcrjsr - nominated by Dcrjsr -- Dcrjsr (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is probably the most aesthetically pleasing of the original hand-drawn ribbon representations of proteins from the early '80s, from which the now-ubiquitous computer-graphics ribbon images of protein 3D structure developed. This 8-stranded barrel protein fold has turned out to be extremely common for enzymes. This image thus has historical as well as scientific value. It is from a scan of a photograph (slide) of the original pastel drawing (by Jane Richardson | me), retouched somewhat to even the background lighting. -- Dcrjsr (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Musia! (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--very fine pastle sketchMadhurantakam
•  Support Thank you so much for uploading this. It's incredibly interesting to see an example of a major biochemical model by the inventor of this means of modelling it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Dcrjsr: you are Jane S Richardsson, then? I would suppose so as you have uploaded it and say it is yours, but why do you refer to yourself in third person in your comment above then? Plrk (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment--may be u can add the g-crystalline proteins sketch as well Jane Madhurantakam
•  Comment Yes, the Dcrjsr account is Dave and me; I wasn't trying to be coy - I don't really know the rhetoric of this medium yet! Indeed, we will try to contribute various other of our images to the Commons as well - but I'm afraid only a few of our other photos of hand drawings have the technical quality and resolution of this one. Dcrjsr (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Awesome! Plrk (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment After a useful comment by Pstanton on Wikipedia, I've cleaned up a small glitch in the upper-left corner and replaced the image with TriosephosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png (the old one TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png is still there if anyone wants to compare). Also, thanks to Lycaon for making a clear-background version. Dcrjsr (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support And for scientific interest, is this a possible candidate for Valued Images? - Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support GerardM (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC) important and encyclopaedic
•  Oppose "Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level." ? —kallerna™ 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose 1600 x 1200 is quite small, and below the Featured Pictures guidelines. Since this seems to be originally from a drawing, can you re-scan it at a higher resolution? (As high as possible to produce a PNG file less than 12MB.) JalalV (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The slide from which this was scanned has rather uneven background lighting, which took a great deal of hand-work to even out for this image and is therefore not a good source for higher resolution. It would be possible, and desirable, to re-photograph the original drawing (which is still in good shape under glass} but that is not feasible in one day, given our packed schedule for tomorrow. Is it possible to extend the comment period on this image, since my newbie ignorance made it visible here only on Jan 17, not Jan 14? Actually, the reason I nominated it, in spite of the 1600x1200 quote, is because drawings are supposed to be done as png's, and as a png it is 3.1Mb. I do agree that since it's possible to get higher resolution, I should definitely do that. However, those few extra days would be appreciated, in order to follow this last-minute suggestion that would improve what's publicly available here. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose As other opposers. If, BTW, you are certain that you will be able to provide us with a higher resolution (as good quality) scan, then you might consider withdrawing this one an nominating the new one when it is ready. Lycaon (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

result (for original version): 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support now it looks great! --SvonHalenbach (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC) too late --D-Kuru (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I decided to change my vote, as the timing of this nomination seems unclear. However, please, please upload the higher quality (close to 12MB) version! I'm supporting because I think the "delist and replace" option is better than relisting this picture all over again, but I am trusting that the higher res version will be available soon... --JalalV (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC) too late --D-Kuru (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Replaced image with the requested high-resolution re-scan of the original drawing; somewhat truer color balance. Included some of the surrounding mat, to emphasize that it is a physical drawing. Dcrjsr (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks! Personally, I would crop-out the mat, especially as the original drawing that was voted on did not have it, and frames are looked down upon on at FP. --JalalV (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment OK, here it is now without the mat. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)