I think this infographic is a good idea, but I think the summary of the “noncommercial” (NC) clause is grossly misleading.
I would strongly urge to add a note that explains that NC clauses also prohibit the inclusion of the material in any copyleft or open-source work (such as combining it with the CC-BY-SA clause), including its use on Wikipedia, and its use in free open-source textbooks, or any educational material that is licensed with copyleft or SA licenses.
I also would prefer if there were mention of their other downsides, which I discuss at length here, including their vagueness, which tends to lead a lot of people to avoid them even for uses that would be allowed, and their strange or unintended interpretations by foreign courts, such as Germany interpreting them as barring even educational / public / charitable use by anyone other than individuals.
I personally question whether it’s beneficial to allow people to select these licenses at all, as I consider them a huge can of worms, but if you’re going to include them (especially if they’re made the default, as they are currently, something I disagree with) I think it is critically important that you be honest about their problems and downsides. I think far fewer people would select them if they knew just how restrictive they are. The more I’ve learned about the NC licenses the more I have become an ardent opponent of them and a proponent for either more lenient (CC-BY or even public domain) or stricter copyleft (CC-BY-SA) licencing.