Question Are we sure about the license of all the parts of the picture? Is Pr Yeates the uploader, or do we have a document from him? What is the status of the electronic microscope images? Shouldn't the scope be limited to carboxisome, since it is only an example of bacterial organelle? --Eusebius (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the uploader of all of the images, Prof Yates released Image:Carboxysome.png using OTRS and Image:Carboxysomes EM.jpg is from PLoS Biology, which licenses its contents under a CC attribution licence link. I went for the wider scope since the carboxysome images are the only example I could find of any images of bacterial organelles on Commons. Limiting it to just "carboxysome" therefore seemed unnecessarily timid! TimVickers (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look at it already. I guess I can support, but an expert review would be better in that case. I'll base my review on the assumption that Pr Yeates is an expert :-) --Eusebius (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, I think you should have been more timid. The image indeed shows only a single class of organelles. With the given scope one would expect ribosomes, a nucleoid, plasmids or even gas storage vesicles. I'd happily support a Carboxysome(s) scope though. Lycaon (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Does a VI in a particular category have to illustrate all the items that could be placed in that category? I notice Image:Hamburg Hafen Containerterminal.jpg is a VI with the scope of "Port container cranes", but does not illustrate all the possible types of port container cranes. Similarly, this diagram illustrates one of several types of bacterial organelles, but it does not illustrate all possible types of bacterial organelle. I'm happy to narrow the scope if comprehensiveness is a requirement, but I didn't think it was. TimVickers (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might see what you're meaning, you see this as a nomination for a valued image set? I'd thought that since this was a single file that is a composite of several images it was simply a valued image nomination. Which is it? TimVickers (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no. What I see in this image are different aspects of one type of organelle: the Carboxysome. Which is fine. But with a scope of organelles, I expect different ones (not necessarily a comprehensive set). Lycaon (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the scope could be plural, like this image with the scope of "glaciers" only showing one glacier, this image with the scope "glacial lakes" showing one glacial lake, and this image with the scope "Dead Sea scrolls" showing one scroll. The instructions could be a bit clearer about this. However, I'll change this to bacterial organelle if you think that is better. TimVickers (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no hard and fast rule about plural or singular scopes - the guidelines just say that "The image should also be reasonably characteristic of the typical range of subjects falling within the claimed scope". So in your case whether you use singular or plural does not matter: it matters only whether your example is reasonably characteristic of the overall claimed scope. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michael, that is a tricky one to answer, since organelles are quite a diverse group (exactly how diverse depends on how you define them). To avoid any further confusion I think I'll change the scope to "Bacterial microcompartments", of which the carboxysome is the best-understood member of a group of very similar structures (see en:Bacterial microcompartment. This is less lay-friendly than "organelle", but it is precise and specific. TimVickers (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
