Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Six Allotropes of Carbon

Six Allotropes of Carbon


With some of the data I gathered when I made the carbon nanotube image I nominated below, I created an overview of the variety of molecular structures that can be built out of carbon. It's currently used in the carbon and Allotropes of carbon articles and is quite useful there. UPDATE: I created a new image according to suggestions.


 * Self-nominate and support. - Mstroeck 17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support although I would appreciate captions below each allotrope in the image. - Mgm|(talk) 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback! I wanted to upload this to Commons, so I left out English language captions for now... What do other people think? Mstroeck 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put text in the image, makes it harder to reuse in other wikipedias. But you might label with numbers which you can refer to in the caption. --Dschwen 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I added labels and a more detailed caption. Mstroeck 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think the diamond phase would profit from a reduction of atom count, magnification and a slight change of angle. Also you have three fullerenes in the picture which I think overrepresents them. Have you thought about Lonsdaleite and amorphous carbon? --Dschwen 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I added them. I kept the fullerenes though, I really like them :-) Mstroeck 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's getting better! Keep working on it, and I'll support! (I'd like to see diamond and Lonsdaleite improved - they're a bit unclear now.) --Janke | Talk 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Working on it, Janke. I'll upload in a day or two. Mstroeck 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I really like the image, and it supports the articles well. I'd go to strong support if diamond was clearer, but I'd still support it as it stands.  Nice work | Spaully 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about some colors? Renata 23:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd rather not use colors just for the sake of being colorful. If you have any ideas how we could make good use of colors, tell me. I think of this as a collaborative process ;-) Mstroeck 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but the pic now is way too grey for me. And colors could do two things (1) make it more colorful so I can say it is pretty and (2) make the structure more clear. Now g for example is a complete mess - a hairy grey spot without form (I understand it might be the whole purpose). Also it takes some time to figure out a. Renata 03:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a) is messy, I'm working on that. g) is indeed meant to be 'without a clearly defined shape or form', which is after all the dictionary definition of 'amorphous'. I'll try to upload a picture with some color, just for comparison. Mstroeck 03:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support nice illustration chowells 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wikizwerg 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Very nice work, this is a great subject. I think the diamond representation in what is being called the "old version" is superior to the one in the new.  I am not sure if it the more clear perspective or if it simply more carbons, but the repeating pattern appears more clearly in the old version.  Just my $0.02.
 * Support - good.--Deglr6328 06:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the image isn't at the Commons. (Please strike this vote if / when the picture gets uploaded in the right place.) dbenbenn | talk 08:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)  Vote was removed because image has been uploaded to Commons. Mstroeck 13:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you show us where having uploaded the picture to commons is mentioned as a voting criteria for en:WP:FPC ? --Dschwen 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What is a featured picture lists a few general criteria, among them that an image should be useful. Images uploaded here can only be used here; images at the Commons are more useful in that they can be used by any Wikimedia project.  dbenbenn | talk 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's quite a stretch! After all this is en.wp and the image is useful here. And besides it is not property of the image itself, if you want to use it on any other wikipedia you are free to upload it to commons yourself. Who stops you? It's a wiki after all ;-) --Dschwen 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the criteria for FPs before voting. I have no problem with opposing votes on grounds of picture quality, but this is just weird. Your vote is invalid anyway, but rest assured that I will upload it to Commons after I've made the changes that other users have suggested. Mstroeck 12:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I dunno, would it be too much to ask for some colour to be put on it? enochlau (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - quite frankly, I don't find it striking, given its black and white state and dullness. Illustrates article well, but not spectacular. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I almost like it... but there's still something missing. I don't know what it is yet. Maybe it's that the letters are two small (for the caption identification) or that it's in b&w? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

