Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Inside a Carbon Nanotube

Inside a Carbon Nanotube
A model I created for the carbon nanotube article. I think it illustrates the structure of nanotubes quite well. Update: I made another image according to Dschwen's comments, please vote on the newer one.


 * Support and self-nominate. Mstroeck 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not too thrilled. Whats the encyclopedic value? What do the colors mean? Are atomic radii physically motivated? The interesting thing about carbon nanotubes is the roll-up vector and how it influences the properties. It is missing in the image caption. What type of NT are we looking at? --Dschwen 17:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, I was a bit quick in nominating this... A created a new picture that probably has more encyclpedic value. As an alternative to the new one, one could also crop it to just the two tubes. What do you think? Regarding coloring and atom size: Physical accuracy sometimes has to take the back seat. If you make nanotubes in one color and with bigger atoms, you can't see the structure at all. "Rainbow" like coloring is more or less the only way to really make the structure easy to understand, IMO. Mstroeck 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * New picture is nice, the only problem I have now is the text. It is not readable in thumbnail size, and not language neutral . Is there any way you can relayout the pic, keeping all three illustrations but moving the text to the caption? --Dschwen 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * strike the language comment, I was on commons with my mind :-) --Dschwen 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the new one, but could you add it to the article and you might want to get rid of the text (replace it with a zig-zag one?) and put the text in the article caption and on the Image page. Did that make any sense? BrokenSegue 20:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have a zig-zag one too, but unfortunately I have been unable to find the data (in any format, pdbh ,ib, xyz, whatever) of a zig-zag one and frankly don't have the energy and knowledge to build one from the ground up myself. I'll keep searching...
 * Nevermind, I just found the data I needed. I also added small line-drawing schematics to make the structure more obvious. I also added it to the article. Mstroeck 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support the new edit. One little tweak would make it even better: The legend under zig-zag is almost touching the armchair version. A little more space, if you please... (Also, isn't it common practise to have the nearer parts red, the parts further away blue, to give a more intuitive feeling of depth? Just curious...) --Janke | Talk 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I shuffled things around a bit, everything is more evenly spaced now. About the coloring: To be honest, I really don't know what's customary, I have close to no experience with modeling molecules... I cannot really remember why I put the blue end first :-) Mstroeck 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support because I think it illustrates the topic well and has pretty colours :-) Wikizwerg 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Impressive looking, informative, clear.  Layout could be played around with more, but as long as it's of comparable quality, I'll support it.--ragesoss 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support does an excelent job at showing what a carbon nanotube looks like, and it looks nice.--Lewk_of_Serthic 02:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support... but reluctantly. I wish this could show, or at least have a caption about how they all have to be benzene and sp2 hybridized. Right now it just seems to be a lot of cyclohexanes, which would be impossible because of the curvature. - JPM | 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Any ideas on how I might work that in? I don't want to obscure the very basic information what nanotubes are all about by adding stuff that 98% of readers won't even attempt to understand. An unobstrusive, clear way would be nice, though. Mstroeck 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a way to show it graphically without ruining the picture, and explaining it thoroughly would be a bad idea as you said, but it might be important to note somewhere (it can be a very small note) that they are actually benzene and not cyclohexane, for encyclopedic value. - JPM | 06:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support.Looks nicePschemp | Talk 07:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes yes yes!--Deglr6328 07:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This has become an excellent illustration now. --Dschwen 07:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support --Fir0002 07:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It illustrates the article well.--Ali K 11:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reference for the image? That'd be great. Support even if you don't. BrokenSegue 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll add some references. All the information is in the article and referenced there, though. Mstroeck 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely. enochlau (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support although I think, white background would be more elegant Eteru 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments.
 * While most of the text labels are nicely antialiased, those in the diagram in the top left look strange when viewed full-size. It looks either like an artifact of interpolated scaling or the application of a filter (perhaps a blur) post text rendering.  It would be nice if this could be fixed.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have the time to fix this right now. I just took a picture from the article, inverted it, scaled it up and put it in there. I'd have to redo that part of the drawing... Please feel free to go ahead and do it yourself, though, if you can. I'd really appreciate it. At least, it's only apparent if you look at it at full resolution, which is way beyond what fits on 99% of screens out there.
 * The spelling of "zigzag" isn't consistent - in the topright diagram it's spelled "zig-zag" with a hyphen, in the top left without one.
 * Damn, I was hoping I could still slip that change in without anybody noticing :-) I have the original of the picture on a different PC, but will correct that before voting ends.
 * The use of text labels in a diagram such as this is unavoidable, but that still leaves problems changing it for use in other languages. I'm assuming uploading a source document (like an SVG) isn't possible? I'll support if you upload an alternate version to commons (linked from the image page of the current image) with all the text labels (including the math labels in the top left diagram) removed, to allow easier translation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. I will upload an uncaptioned version to Commons. Unfortunately, the original is a rather sloppy Photoshop composition, not an SVG, so I can't upload it. However, I specifically didn't use any fancy backgrounds or gradients because you can just take the eraser or a black pen-tool and get rid of the captions in less than a minute. Not ideal, but since we can't upload .PSDs... Mstroeck 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Wikimol 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't like the black background; it should be white instead.  And even if you like the black, why is there a transparent bar on the left side?  Finally, the image is not at the Commons, so it is less useful to other Wikimedia projects. dbenbenn | talk 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Being in commons is _not_ a requirement for FPC. chowells 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

