Comments are provided for [10]. In this article, it is emphasized that “The two parameters in Young’s equation, which are amenable to experimental measurement, are the wetting contact angle and the liquid-vapor surface tension”. It is implied, that it is impossible to measure directly the difference between solid-vapor and solid-liquid interfacial tensions. Hence, it is implied that experimentally the validity of Young’s equation cannot be tested at all. In this remark I wish to point out that this difference, however, can be “measured” in computer experiments on simple model systems. One such computer experiment was recently performed for the Ising (Lattice gas) model of a fluid [1–3]. Another one dealt with a symmetrical binary Lennard-Jones mixture [4]. Another point of concern is the statement that the contact angle of nanoscopically small droplets can be satisfactorily accounted for without the need for a line tension. Again this statement does not apply to the simulations of sessile nanodroplets in the Ising model [1–3], where the need for a line tension contribution was shown. In this model, the line tension (for the case of a contact angle of 90 degrees) could be estimated independently, by considering a “liquid slab” bridging two walls, computing the interfacial excess free energy as a function of wall separation, and considering the extrapolation of the results to the thermodynamics limit [1]. The limiting value (surface tension of a planar interface) can be obtained independently from a study of a corresponding liquid slab without walls but with periodic boundary conditions. This method has also been used successfully for the binary Lennard-Jones mixture [4]. Note that for macroscopic planar liquid-vapor interfaces the pressure in equilibrium cannot differ from the coexistence pressure, unlike the case of nanodroplets. When one considers nanoscopic droplets the dependence of the vapor-liquid surface tension on the radius of curvature of the droplet may play a role. This problem often is discussed in terms of Tolman’s length [5]. Recent simulations for a a e-mail: Kurt.Binder@uni-mainz.de 162 The European Physical Journal Special Topics Lennard-Jones fluid [6] have given additional evidence that this length is negative but small (typically 10% of a molecular diameter only, although it is predicted to diverge at the critical point [7]). The curvature dependence of the surface free energy of a nanodroplet needs also to be considered when one tries to extract the line tension from contact angle observations taken from nanodroplets and this was done in the studies cited [1–4]. In addition, there are severe conceptual problems since on the molecular scale interfaces are not sharp but rather diffuse, and line tension contributions then depend on conventions how exactly the contact line is defined [8,9] (depending on different definitions for the positions of the various dividing interfaces between the three phases). So the judgement of this author is that although the line tension clearly is difficult to measure in experiments and also difficult to calculate from theoretical models, but it should not be altogether dismissed.