Talk:Optical properties of carbon nanotubes

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

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

GA Review

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.

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

Need to update new data on optical transitions

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

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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements throughout the article, including entire sections. Is anyone willing to address this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Optical properties of carbon nanotubes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Lots of uncited statements including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I placed tags in the most obvious places. I'll see what I can address when I have access to the university library later but it's quite a tall order for this article and I don't have expertise in the field of carbon chemistry. I'm also concerned about the seemingly flippant/casual tone used often ("can be easily calculated", "they are less important and not considered here"...) Reconrabbit 23:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I did get a hold of the 2022 reference work Handbook of Carbon Nanotubes. Also may have success referring to the Handbook of Carbon-Based Nanomaterials. I do have further concerns as I skim through these that the terminology and some concepts in this article are now outdated or superseded by current research. Reconrabbit 14:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Reconrabbit, do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I will. The abundance of missing references is too much to work on right now, especially with some of these statements being tough to verify ("no reliable sharp peaks has been detected as of yet", "relies on the temperature factor, which is often miscalculated"). At least these reference works will provide something to work off of in the future, but it's too far out of my area of knowledge. Reconrabbit 13:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.