Wikipedia:Peer review/Carbon nanotube/archive1

Carbon nanotube[edit]

This article seems like it deals with many areas of the subject. Could you please provide some comments/feedback for how this article could be improved. Any help will be appreciated! Snailwalker | talk 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest thing that stands out here (and also the most annoying to fix, thanks to cite.php) is the references; linking individual articles is good but the full citation should be written out, as static links can change/die/etc, and it is useful for people familiar with the field to see at a glance who or which paper is being cited. There are also some references in the text in the (Soandso, 2002) format, but they aren't and can't be linked to the refs list because the names aren't given. Other stuff:

The lead says "recently discovered" - even the 1991 date isn't really that recent.

Well compared to the history of graphite, diamonds and other carbon based types, I'd say that 1991 is pretty recently

The first image caption says "three types of carbon nanotubes" - I don't see three types in that image, I see two orientations of one thing, which is kind of a generic hollow pipe. I don't think this image is especially explanatory. The second, animated one could also be slowed down a bit.

First one done, I'm not that good at gif-images, so I don't know if anyone else can update the image?

The history section is very name-heavy, which would be fine for a review where readers could be expected to know the people involved, but for an encyclopedia article they can be devolved to the references.
Add a 3D image of armchair vs zigzag tubes?

Done

Some sections are very stubby - fullerite, thermal properties, laser ablation, etc.

Some done

In the properties section, there's a sentence about nanotubes being one of the strongest materials known to humans. I know nanotubes are a favorite of the futurist/scifi/etc. people, but this just sounds strange, like there's an expectation of stronger materials being known to some other species.

Changed

Some numerical data is uncited (magnetic moment of nanotori, nanotube density, etc.)

Done

Applications section is obviously listy - it would probably be more useful to choose a few important applications and explain them in prose - especially the bike, since the image at the bottom kind of comes out of nowhere. Perhaps create a subarticle for applications.

Done

History/timeline section should have its own subarticle.

Done

More information on the chemistry, rather than the industrial processes, of nanotube formation would be useful. In particular, what molecular events trigger the formation of nanotubes vs buckyballs, single-walled vs multi-walled, etc.

Opabinia regalis 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments, I'm working on them right now. More comments would be appreciated. What do you mean be the references? Snailwalker | talk 11:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work (especially the applications section)! I like the new header image, with the question of whether it would be better to leave the animation in the top right corner and put the new one with the explanation of the nomenclature? Also, now that the history timeline has its own article, the history and discovery sections can probably be merged into a single section with only prose.

The reference problem comes from the fact that there are just static external links to the articles being cited, but no standard citation giving the authors' names, the title, the journal, etc. This makes it impossible to connect the nonstandard parenthetical citations with the references list, and presents a problem if Nature for example ever changes the internal structure of its website and breaks the links. To fix it, you'd have to a) convert the parenthetical citations to be consistent with the rest of the article, and b) give the standard citation format in addition to the link. (There is a template {{cite journal}} used for formatting journal citations like those to Nature; IMO it's obnoxiously long, but it gives you an idea of what parameters are needed.) Fixing it would be rather tedious since the references are in cite.php format and therefore scattered throughout the text rather than concentrated in one place, but there may be a tool floating around for extracting the references that would make it easier to work with. (My opinion: I wouldn't bother fixing it unless the goal is GA or FA status. But that's just me.)

References updated Snailwalker | talk 11:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most significant content omission I see in this article is the lack of chemical or molecular-level information. For example, the article says "Under high pressure, nanotubes can merge together, trading some sp2 bonds for sp3 bonds", but there's no mention of the chemical mechanism. The same goes for the reasons nanotubes specifically are formed under the conditions used in the industrial processes. I'd like to know what causes the "curl" in a flat sheet vs a single-walled tube vs a parchment-scroll multiwalled tube, and whether the production conditions can be tuned to give more of one type or another (assuming they don't produce homogeneous results already). Also a comparison to the internal electronic properties of helicenes would be interesting if the data is available. Opabinia regalis 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm the way I understand it, it seems that scientist don't really know what makes the nanotubes, they just add a lot of heat and hope it'll work. That's why when you make carbon nanotubes you'll get a lof of different tubes in various lengths scattered over a large area, you can't really control the process.Snailwalker | talk 11:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 03:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A topic of current interest with nanotubes and other nanomaterials is environmental and health impacts. You may consider adding a section regarding these issues. Leeannedy 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]