Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2.png

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2021 at 01:42:27 (UTC)

Original – Scientifically accurate atomic model of the external structure of the SARS-CoV-2. Each "ball" is an atom.
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well.
Articles in which this image appears
Spike protein, SARS-CoV-2, Template:COVID-19 pandemic sidebar, Coronavirus
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator
Alexey Solodovnikov (Idea, Producer, CG, Editor), Valeria Arkhipova (Scientific Сonsultant)
  • Support as nominator – Niklitov (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference: The image was placed in the two articles today/yesterday [1], [2] (see FP critierion 5). The image was published (publication link) on 29 July 2021 in the N+1 science website (traslation). The Commons nomination is at this link. I am not a specialist and cannot judge the scientific significance or accuracy of the image. Personally I think, assuming that the N+1 website is not a peer-reviewed publication, we should wait a while (at least a few months) and see if any concerns are raised about this image in the talk pages of the two articles the image was added to. Bammesk (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose criterion 5 Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. --Janke | Talk 16:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – IMO the world is tired of pics & depictions of the ƒ₴*!@$#?&! Virus. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Dear Colleagues Janke, Charlesjsharp, Bammesk, Sca! Before publication on the N+1 popular science portal, the image received 3 reviews from scientific consultants:
  • Nikitin N.A., Doctor of Biological Sciences, Department of Virology, Faculty of Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University.
  • Borisevich S.S. PhD in Chemical Sciences, Specialist in Molecular Modeling of Viral Surface Proteins, Senior Researcher, Laboratory of Chemical Physics, Ufa Institute of Chemistry RAS.
  • Arkhipova V.I., specialization in Fundamental and Applied chemistry, senior engineer, RNA Chemistry Laboratory, Institute of chemical biology and fundamental medicine SB Russian Academy of Sciences.
The N+1 article itself talks about this. Criterion 5 is ok, right? – Niklitov (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, to the general, non-scientific person, they all look more or less the same. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this isn't really aesthetically pleasing, it's too irregular, and the "spikes" seem a bit too big compared to the "real" electron microscope images we've seen... --Janke | Talk 08:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Janke, per file description and image captions this is the "model of the 'external' structure", (struck per explanation below) so the spikes are not to scale compared to the body. The intricate spike details are magnified here. This may not be the best image for the infobox (the article editors will decide that). I will support if the image remains stable in the article(s) for a few months (infobox or not). It adds significant EV to the article(s) IMO. Bammesk (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Bammesk (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello! Thank you for your comments, I will try to answer.
    When aesthetics is on one side of the scale and scientific credibility on the other, we choose science. You can see from the micrographs that the spike proteins should be arranged irregularly. We also took into account the flexibility of the S-proteins and reflected it in our model. The virus looks less neat now, but all sacrifices are in the name of science.
    Next, we need to remember two facts about the size of the coronavirus. The first is that SARS-СoV-2 does not have a strictly defined size - it is in a wide range of diameters. The size can be either 60 or 150 nm. Second, the size of the S-protein is determined more precisely, approximately 30 nm. So, it turns out that the ratio of the spike protein and the "body" of the virus may differ. We have chosen averages to create our model.
    We can find many sources confirming the truth of the dimensions of the parts of our model, but I will refer to one from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2665-2
    If you pay attention to the relative sizes of spikes and virion in the electron micrographes in Fig. 1, their length ratio will be 0.35. In our model, the ratio of the lengths of our spike to the size of the virus is 0.32. It seems to me that the numbers have been successfully confirmed by science? I hope I managed to clarify this question ;) AlexeySolodovnikov (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the arguments from the author, but. We have had science images that passed nominations which needed (minor) corrections. We (the reviewers) aren't experts. This nomination is just too soon. As I mentioned above I would like to give the image some time in en-Wiki before supporting. Bammesk (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not my scene. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Coronavirus._SARS-CoV-2.png&oldid=1038220425"