Talk:Optical properties of carbon nanotubes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Optical properties of carbon nanotubes has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 8, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
WikiProject Physics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


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[edit]

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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Optical properties of carbon nanotubes/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include:

  • Insufficient references
    • "Terminology" section
    • "Electronic structure of carbon nanotube" section
    • "Optical absorption" section
    • "Cathodoluminescence" section
    • "Raman scattering" section
  • References must be formatted per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access dates

Once these issues have been resolved, please feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image looks screwed up.[edit]

Compare the image found in [1] with this one [2] to see what I mean.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP 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 {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 12:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to update new data on optical transitions[edit]

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[edit]

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 {ταλκκοντριβςWP 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 {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)