Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Molecular gyroscope
- Reason
- Clear, colorful, and nicely illustrates a supramolecular complex of cucurbituril macrocycles in three dimensions, which is crucial to understand their chemical properties. It was generated from the actual X-ray crystal structure data and is used to illustrate the difficulty faced in isolating the pure form of cucurbit[10]uril. The complex particularly interesting since it resembles a gyroscope, but is only about 2 nanometers wide. To my knowledge it would be the first featured picture of real molecules.
- Caption
- Molecular inclusion complex composed of two different sizes of cucurbiturils and a chloride ion that mimic a gyroscope.
- Articles this image appears in
- cucurbituril and supramolecular chemistry
- Creator
- M_stone
- Support as nominator M stone (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Well done, good for the articles, but lacks the "wow" I expect from a FP. --Janke | Talk 13:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - E6T7A4. The edges of the model are heavily aliased (jaggy) at full size. There is also no information in the image itself as to what we are looking at. If the reader is a student of molecular chemistry they would probably know exactly what the image means without much of a caption (or at least only a caption that says it's a picture of cucurbituril macrocycles), but anyone else would be quite confused by what it's supposed to portray. There's no scale in the image (would be helpful) and nothing to tell people why the atoms are modelled as tubes and nodes. There's also nothing in the image that 'illustrate[s] the difficulty faced in isolating the pure form of cucurbit[10]uril' whatsoever - what's the difficulty, and how can this be seen from the image? Is it just that it's small? Is it hard to get the atoms in three layers like that? I dunno. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)- Support: Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm sure you're going to put this and this image and every other molecule illustration on FPC too, right? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was only planning to nominate this image. I thought it might be interesting since I had not seen featured pictures like this before. M stone (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- And if that's the reason for opposing, it's invalid. You can't oppose an image just because the nominator may be going to nominate other pictures in the future. --jjron (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- My reason for opposing was that there is nothing about this picture that makes it better, more interesting or more informative than the rest of the molecule illustrations on Wikipedia. If this picture is FP'ed, the rest should be too! --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK. This image went up on PPR here, where the author tried to explain that he thought this was the best of them. --jjron (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- My reason for opposing was that there is nothing about this picture that makes it better, more interesting or more informative than the rest of the molecule illustrations on Wikipedia. If this picture is FP'ed, the rest should be too! --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- And if that's the reason for opposing, it's invalid. You can't oppose an image just because the nominator may be going to nominate other pictures in the future. --jjron (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't see anything exceptional compared to many other molecule illustrations. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 23:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above points. -Sharkface217 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)