Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Plant cell structure svg.svg

Image:Plant cell structure-en.svg[edit]

Reason: THE Golgi bodies in this cell appears to be doing nothing, however, this is a highly specific subcellular organelle that processes important substances for the cell, obtaining them initially from the ER and detaching vesicles to send them to the plasma membrane. There's more to it than this, but this Golgi appears to be getting proteins from the vacuole and modifying them to be sent to the nucleus? Or maybe it is getting stuff from the rER around the nucleus and sending it to the vacuole, but the Golgi vesicles don't appear to be coming from the ER? It's hard to tell, but it's not Golgi that's going on. The Golgi needs to be accurate, cause this cell won't live.
Nominator: Blechnic (talk)

~~Delist~~ — Blechnic (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There seems to be nothing wrong with this image other than the fact that it is a static image. Sure, the real organelles will be active and moving in a real cell, but this cannot be accurately depicted in a static two dimensional system. Perhaps if we had a diagram that depicted this, it would be beneficial to the project, just as this image is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sorry, that's not correct, the Golgi body does not gather substances from the vacuole, but rather takes proteins from the rough Endoplastic Reticulum, processes them further, then distributes them in Golgi vessicleen towards the plasma membrane. This cell has a Golgi body gathering proteins from the vacuole, and no matter how hard the vacuole tries it simply does not have the machinery of the rough ER, namely, that which makes it rough: ribosomes. It's a matter of biology, this cell diagram is a diagram of a non-functioning cell. This second diagram that I added below, for example, is a diagram of a cell with a functioning Golgi apparatus that can actually do that which is necessary for the cell to function: make proteins. All the original research and lack of biology in the world won't save this cell and bring it to life. Also, static cells are a function of the medium, flat screen, there's plenty of room for a biologically accurate cell diagram. --Blechnic (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But, again, you are again discussing the technical limitations of the image. It is not illustrating any processes. It is illustrating the general placement of the organelles of the plant cell. Any description of a process would be covered in the Golgi body article or the rough endoplasmic reticulum article. As far as I can see, the Golgi body is near both forms of the endoplasmic reticulum and the vaculole. I can see nothing wrong with this image based on what I see on the below image. Even though the below image is of an animal cell and not a plant cell.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm not discussing the processes, I am discussing the location of the Golgi body in this particular diagram, which makes it a cell without a functioning Golgi body. Organelles do not occur in just any location in a cell, they often occur in functionally specific locations. The Golgi body in this cell is in a non-functioning location with its cis-face, which should be closest of the two faces to the rough ER, facing a vacuole. This means, that for this particular cell illustration, newly formed proteins from the rough ER that need further processing in the cisternae of the Golgi apparatus, have nowhere to go. However, proteins formed in the vacuole are ready set to go to enter the cis-face of this cell's single Golgi, except for the fact that proteins in a cell are not formed in the vacuole. The cell below has the cis-face of the Golgi facing the rough ER. The trans-face of the plant cell's Golgi appears to be facing the smooth ER, but that hardly matters since it's processing proteins built in the vacuole. It's a simple matter of biology: the biology is wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So this is just the orientation of the Golgi bodies. Seems to be a minor issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, it's a major issue, it kills the cell. However it is a fixable issue, but it has to be fixed, and until then, it should be delisted as a FP, and, removed from articles: it gives false information. Encyclopedias should at least have the basic facts straight, and proteins are some pretty basic and important facts to living things. --Blechnic (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as Ryulong said. It's an excellent introductory illustration. General illustrations of this sort cannot possibly illustrate every single process happening within the cell (there are thousands of those). This illustration is among the best we have, of any subject. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to illustrate the process. This image is illustrating, however, a process that doesn't take place. If it's going to illustrate any processes, it should illustrate biological processes, not non-biological processes, or the positions of the organelles after the cell dies. These choices serve no purpose. --Blechnic (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you need to be more accurate w.r.t. how this illustration would be improved. What is your complaint? That the Golgi has the wrong orientation? Or that the vesicles are the wrong colour? Because I don't even see how you can tell where the vesicles are going. And comparing an animal cell to a plant cell is not necessarily helpful. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You argue so forcefully to keep, it's a bit hard to understand what is going on. Quite simply the Golgi body takes proteins from the rough ER (ribosomes) and processes them further, then sends them out in the Golgi vessicles to other locations in the cell. The cis-face of the Golgi is the face facing the rough ER, and is often convex in shape. This is where proteins from the rough ER enter the Golgi for further, methodical, direction specific processing in the ciseternae of the Golgi, from the rough ER, to the Golgi intermediate/tubulovesicular complex whose vessicles fuse to the cis-face of the Golgi, to the Golgi, through the Golgi medial cisternae, being processed in the stack along the way, to the trans Golgi cisternae, to the trans Golgi network, and often concave face, where they bud off and are sorted for transport within the cell. Biological processes involving proteins are not usually two way streets, and the Golgi apparatus isn't a two way street or a random street. A simple diagram of a cell will show none of this, but it should not have the Golgi in a biologically non-functional location. It doesn't matter whether it's an animal or plant cell showing a Golgi for a simplified cell diagram. The animal cell has serious issues, also, but it's Golgi is biologically functional. The plant cell is dead. And the very least that should be shown is a diagram attempting to represent a living cell, not a cell with artifacts of death, only used in encyclopedias and biology texts when it is cell death that is being discussed. --Blechnic (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I very much doubt that cells ever die because their Golgi body gets misaligned. But be that as it may, it seems your problem can be solved by moving the vacuole out of the way, which is a trivial thing to do. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the Golgi has to face the rough ER! The vacuole's not the problem. And, yes, the majority of cells, at least cells with all the parts in this diagram, do make proteins their entire lives. Please, just grab an introductory biology text and look at the plant and animal cell diagrams in it, the labeled ones. --Blechnic (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This seems to be becoming a very tedious discussion. Why don't you make what changes you need to the image, and present it as a replacement candidate? Inkscape is your friend. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not an illustrator. It will have to be done by someone else. What's tedious? You don't seem to know much about the Golgi apparatus and are offering suggestions and voting without this knowledge. Maybe that's what's tedious. --Blechnic (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not interested in a pissing match. My !vote is up there. Be bold. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes, apparently based on limited biological knowledge, whereas I'm simply going by the lack of biological accuracy, something that should matter in an encyclopedia. Too bad for the readers this isn't true, and a pretty picture is good enough. Pictures shouldn't be original research and creative interpretations, they should be clear and accurate diagrams of what they're supposed to represent. I'm not surprised to have folks vote based on it being a pretty diagram, as that was what I expected when I first pointed out how many of these biological diagrams are inaccurate: that putting them up for delisting would result in their becoming permanent crap on Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Be bold and {{sofixit}}. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, that's exactly what I'm doing, bringing it to the attention of someone who can fix it. I've notified the illustrator, and its appearance here may attract more attention. Until then, it needs to stop appearing on the featured picture pages, where it merely shows that Wikipedians don't care what their images show as long as they're purty. --Blechnic (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blechnic, since you seem to be talking about a request for improvement, rather than a delist, please move this image to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve - we are always ready to help. Please provide us with a detailed list of the changes you would like to see in this image. For example, tell us where the vesicles should be positioned to be technically accurate, if you want to imply movement, we may be able to imply it with shadows. Please be as clear and detailed as possible, sticking to terms and labels that are already in the image. See you there. Dhatfield (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I posted it there. I still think it doesn't belong in any articles in its current state. Movement isn't necessary, it can be what it's trying to be: a simplified static cell diagram. There is room in all kinds of learning for diagrams of this nature. But it can't simplify an important component to a nonfunctioning position, that's all. --Blechnic (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, it is in no way illustrated that the golgi apparatus is gathering proteins from the vacuole. This is only inferred from the diagram. At any rate, this minor quibble is not substantial enough to delist this image. If you would like it corrected, why don't you contact LadyofHats, the creator of the image? NauticaShad es 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted LadyofHats, who doesn't generally correct her biological images. She still has tons of bacteria in foreign languages which include an artifact of fixation, and quite a number of her cellular ultrastructure images have glaring and obvious problems that only serve to make Wikipedia look incompetent. You're the ones who said I should bring up problematic images. The Golgi can't gather proteins from the vacuol, so of course it's not doing that. And if you're here to certify that biologically inaccurate images on the front page of Wikipedia is fine, then so be it. After all, inaccuracy hardly interferes with encyclopedic value, now, does it? So, here I am pointing out problems,, and it seems that, yes, biological inaccuracies or failures don't impact the encyclopedic value of images. --Blechnic (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, all I'm saying is that these images are the best we've got. If you can procure better free images, then by all means do so. Unfortunately, I doubt this is possible. On the other hand, you are right about the inaccuracy of the image question, and it is good that you have brought the issue up. Nevertheless, a delist nomination is not really the best place for a correction. The graphic labs or the creator might address the issue more competently. I realize that you have made the problem known at these places, but that doesn't change the fact that I believe that the error is not enough for delisting the image. You have pointed out that this image will be on the front page for all to see, but keep in mind that Wikipedia:Featured Pictures and Wikipedia:Picture of the Day are different projects. If you truly believe this image should never be featured on the front page in its current state, then talk to someone like Howcheng, who I think is quite active in WP:POTD. NauticaShad es 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Essentially you're saying to me, if we have a picture of a Crotalus ruber and post it in the taxobox for the Crotalus scutulatus scutulatus that's okay because it's the best picture of a southwestern rattlesnake we have. It's not okay for this picture to be used on Wikipedia, nor for many other cellular ultrastructure pictures by this illustrator--they're original research, not biology. "Best we have" doesn't make it good enough for Wikipedia--and this is a damn hard point to get across when it comes to images. These should not be promoted without review by a biologist, probably not uploaded without prior review due to the nature of the problems. And it's irritating that I have to try to explain this issue to people who don't really understand the issue but are voting against me, anyhow. That's pretty much the wiki way on knowledge, though. --Blechnic (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist -- factually inaccurate images should not be featured. This obvious truth has been codified in featured picture criterion six, which provides that a featured picture

Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.

~~Since the inaccuracy of the image has been effectively conceded, it should be delisted until such time as it can be corrected. John254 01:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep and change policy since voting began this image has gone through two edits at the Graphics Lab and is now, to within the limits of what can be implied in such a diagram, accurate. I propose that all delist candidate images should go through a mandatory edit phase by either the Graphics Lab or the original author at the delist nominator's instigation having a minimum duration of two days, prior to nomination for FP delist. In the case that the image is irreparable, the relevant Graphist would be obliged to second the delisting on those grounds. A 'Delist nomination pending' category would assist this process. Dhatfield (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image as it now stands is what it originally attempted to be, a simplified diagram of a plant cell. Other editors accused me of being too picky, I could really pick a lot apart on this diagram, but what I asked for was simply a diagram that idealized all aspects of the cell at the same level, and the prior orientation of the Golgi body made it a random organelle thrown in the cell. I'm not and wasn't asking it to be perfect. Sending to Graphics lab first would have been fine. The original author does not appear to be willing to correct her mistakes, so this would not have worked. She was, however, notified. Thanks, Dhatfield, for the good work. --Blechnic (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . --John254 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]