38:
247:
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
214:
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
248:
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
67:
284:. 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.
119:: 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
21:
420:
415:
17:
54:
401:
383:
356:
334:
313:
293:
268:
242:
228:
209:
183:
167:
136:
107:
58:
318:
Speedy
Deleted, no. Speedy Delisted, yes. Although it might get deleted if it is inaccurate. Surprised an IP was the first to suggest that.
305:
148:
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
192:
Because it's gone under the radar. Only people who notice the mistake would care, and they might not be editors.
309:
397:
339:
Well the only reason it isn't on any articles is because I removed it from all the articles it was on after
238:
289:
57:), and does not present the subject in a useful way, thus failing to meet criteria 3 and 6 of the
393:
328:
234:
202:
161:
175:
if it is technically inaccurate why does it have such high placement on the articles it's on? —
379:
120:
42:
37:
350:
262:
222:
130:
101:
81:
285:
123:
which describes the different types and includes a nice java applet that depicts them.
409:
374:. For technical innacuracy and poor graphics (irrelevant colours, black background) .
320:
249:
195:
154:
375:
345:
340:
257:
217:
177:
125:
96:
76:
252:. He has been aware of at least some of the mistakes for over three years
68:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Inside_a_Carbon_Nanotube
343:'s comment. I'm not sure if this changes what happens or not.
152:
have voted for this to become an FP with something like that.
253:
233:
Can't the errors just be fixed, rather than a delist?
53:
It is technically inaccurate (for reasons discussed
41:
3D models of three different types of single-walled
304:if it isn't anywhere, should it be speedy deleted?
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
36:
7:
421:Featured picture delist nominations
416:Ended featured picture nominations
28:
1:
402:03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
384:22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
357:06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
335:21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
314:21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
294:12:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
269:22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
255:but has not yet fixed them.
243:21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
229:22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
210:22:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
184:15:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
168:07:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
137:08:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
108:07:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
437:
59:featured picture criteria
32:Types of Carbon Nanotubes
46:
64:Previous nomination/s
40:
47:
331:
208:
428:
353:
348:
332:
330:
327:
325:
265:
260:
225:
220:
207:
205:
200:
193:
166:
164:
159:
133:
128:
104:
99:
84:
79:
43:carbon nanotubes
436:
435:
431:
430:
429:
427:
426:
425:
406:
405:
351:
346:
329:
321:
319:
263:
258:
223:
218:
203:
196:
194:
162:
155:
153:
131:
126:
102:
97:
82:
77:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
434:
432:
424:
423:
418:
408:
407:
387:
386:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
306:166.137.134.41
297:
296:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
212:
187:
186:
170:
142:
141:
140:
139:
111:
110:
88:
87:
73:
70:
65:
62:
51:
34:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
433:
422:
419:
417:
414:
413:
411:
404:
403:
399:
395:
394:Makeemlighter
391:
385:
381:
377:
373:
370:
369:
358:
355:
354:
349:
342:
338:
337:
336:
333:
326:
324:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
279:
270:
267:
266:
261:
254:
251:
250:User:Mstroeck
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
235:Noodle snacks
232:
231:
230:
227:
226:
221:
213:
211:
206:
201:
199:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
182:
181:
180:
174:
171:
169:
165:
160:
158:
151:
147:
144:
143:
138:
135:
134:
129:
122:
118:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
106:
105:
100:
93:
90:
89:
86:
85:
80:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
60:
56:
52:
49:
48:
44:
39:
33:
30:
23:
19:
389:
388:
371:
344:
322:
281:
256:
216:
197:
178:
176:
172:
156:
149:
145:
124:
121:this website
116:
95:
91:
75:
31:
215:structure.
410:Categories
341:User:Raeky
390:Delisted
286:J Milburn
72:Nominator
323:Nezzadar
198:Nezzadar
173:Question
157:Nezzadar
20: |
117:Comment
376:Elekhh
372:Delist
282:Delist
146:Delist
92:Delist
50:Reason
22:delist
179:raeky
150:never
16:<
398:talk
380:talk
352:kasd
310:talk
290:talk
264:kasd
239:talk
224:kasd
132:kasd
103:kasd
83:kasd
55:here
412::
400:)
392:--
382:)
312:)
292:)
241:)
94:—
396:(
378:(
347:J
308:(
288:(
259:J
237:(
219:J
204:☎
163:☎
127:J
98:J
78:J
61:.
45:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
