Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png

Types of Carbon Nanotubes

 * Reason:It is technically inaccurate (for reasons discussed here), and does not present the subject in a useful way, thus failing to meet criteria 3 and 6 of the featured picture criteria.
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured_picture_candidates/Inside_a_Carbon_Nanotube
 * Nominator:  J kasd 


 * Delist &mdash;  J kasd  07:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I intend on making an image contrasting the types of carbon nanotubes when I have the time. For those interested in reviewing the technical details, I recommend this website which describes the different types and includes a nice java applet that depicts them.  J kasd  08:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist I wouldn't know about the accuracy but I do know about the composition. Really? Prismatic on black isn't good in this case. I would never have voted for this to become an FP with something like that.  Nezzadar   ☎   07:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question if it is technically inaccurate why does it have such high placement on the articles it's on? — raeky ( talk 15:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's gone under the radar. Only people who notice the mistake would care, and they might not be editors.  Nezzadar   ☎   22:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, most physicists and chemists probably haven't studied nanotubes enough to notice the error, and just assume that it must be right. I only noticed the mistakes because I've been modeling nanotubes on a computer for research purposes, and therefore had to learn quite a bit about their structure.  J kasd  22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't the errors just be fixed, rather than a delist? Noodle snacks (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I plan on making a similar, but accurate version when I have the time. However, even if the technical errors were fixed, the image does not depict the subject usefully. For example, the prismatic colors convey no additional information, and are distracting. The black background makes this picture non-ideal for printing. The lower right (armchair) nanotube is cropped at an oblique angle which fails to highlight the symmetry of an armchair nanotube. It would be difficult to make the picture look consistent without using the same exact rendering software as User:Mstroeck. He has been aware of at least some of the mistakes for over three years but has not yet fixed them.  J  kasd  22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. I'm glad to see it's been removed from the articles. It's meaningless to me, despite the fact it looks pretty, and so I'm happy to defer. If this is inaccurate, it should not be a FP. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * if it isn't anywhere, should it be speedy deleted? 166.137.134.41 (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Deleted, no. Speedy Delisted, yes. Although it might get deleted if it is inaccurate. Surprised an IP was the first to suggest that. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the only reason it isn't on any articles is because I removed it from all the articles it was on after User:Raeky's comment. I'm not sure if this changes what happens or not.  J kasd  06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. For technical innacuracy and poor graphics (irrelevant colours, black background) .Elekhh (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)