Talk:Optical properties of carbon nanotubes

Reply to previous criticism (see below)

References and introduction have been updated as suggested. References are scientifically formatted. As they are journal references, they do not need publisher and access dates.NIMSoffice (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image looks screwed up, and Copyrights (comments on DWNTpl.jpg by Headbomb). The suggested split of the image would violate the copyright. Therefore, the criticized image is replaced. There is and was no copyright violation. There is no sense discussing the previous image here, and off course it is not a matter of amateurism. If you wish more information (e.g. on details of that 3-D PLE mapping), write at my talk page. Thank you for questioning. NIMSoffice (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA On hold by Crystal whacker. The introduction has been expanded as suggested.NIMSoffice (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the figure captions, the van Hove image does not need a separate caption (it is inside the image).NIMSoffice (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

End of reply to previous criticism

Intro is too short
The intro is waay to short for a GA! Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image looks screwed up.
Compare the image found in with this one  to see what I mean.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image in this Wikipedia article is a combination of two that allows extending the spectral range with very minor distortions. Because one map was in the linear energy scale and other in the reciprocal, it is not easy to combine those two 3D plots with any software. Nothing is "screwed up". This image is unique in a way - very few spectrometers can scan so wide yet.NIMSoffice (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a rather arcane treatment of an image, and one that looks very amateurish. The font sizes don't match, axis are non-continuous, text overlaps (especially in the 12,1/11,3 region), scales are partly linear, partly non-linear. You wouldn't get away with it in any publication I know of.


 * There's nothing lost if two images instead of one are presented. So why not just keep things in the way they were published? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to update new data on optical transitions
It appears (from a couple of Science articles I read recently) that the optical absorption/emission are dictated by exciton formation. I'm not well versed enough in the field but thought I would point it out for someone that is. The articles are The optical resonances in carbon nanotubes arise from excitons and The optical resonances in carbon nanotubes arise from excitons. Amccaugh (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this has been known from the early days of carbon nanotube optics, and is reflected in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights
Oh and another thing, the copyrights of that image belong to the American Chemical Society. If you are not the American Chemical Society, then you shouldn't say you are the copyright holder of that image, or digitally manipulated versions of it. Saying you are might lead to severe repercussions both in and outside wikipedia. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't really know how things work for images, so if you have any question, try the Commons' Help Desk.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)