Talk:Electron backscatter diffraction

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Education - disambiguity issue

This is also an acronym for "emotional, behavioural and social difficulties" cf. “The Ofsted report, ‘Special educational needs and disability: towards inclusive schools’, confirmed that pupils with emotional, behavioural and social difficulties (EBSD) are the most difficult group for schools to manage” . Ofsted (2005:3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.250.44 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if there was an article it could have a link in a hat note or get a disambiguation page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

EBSD map of duplex stainless steel microstructure orientation

• ... that electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) is used to characterise polycrystalline materials at the micro and nano-scale (example pictured)? Source: https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-0-387-88136-2
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bismarck Kuyon

5x expanded by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Electron backscatter diffraction; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @FuzzyMagma: The article before your expansion [1] was 11 kB "readable prose size"; it is now 49 kB "readable prose size". This falls short of 5x expansion unless you have a different count. You could (1) add more text; (2) wait until it passes GA or (3) convince me to waive the rules under WP:IAR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I never understood the 5x criteria but When you look to the page statistics, I have added 83.2% new text which is 0.1% less than the 5x expansion (assuming we mean 5/6 expansion of the article as it) .. if there is other criteria like the article authorship, I am ahead by %86.5, 3.2 ahead of the 5x criteria. All of this and I have never touched this article before this week. cooking all of this offline for months just to land this DYK (also waiting for my thesis and paper to get approved to avoid anyone coming back saying "it was copied from Wikipedia!"). As for WP:IAR, I think I am asking you to be guided by the page statistics (and authorship) rather than just the prose length. It’s not a prose measuring contest .. it’s the text added and text removed or edited FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, we will IAR per the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Electron backscatter diffraction. The criterion is arbitrary (Wikipedia:Did you know/Meanies). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Before it gets picked up at GA, you need to improve the referencing. fn 1 points to a whole book; you need page numbers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

EBSD setup.tif

It would help if the image caption explained what "MSD" is. Also, while it may not be essential to the EBSD process, I'm curious what the metalic object is in the upper-left corner of the picture, above the phosphor screen and the the left of the beam column. Perhaps the caption could mention that? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added that now and also added more infromation about MSD. Please have a look FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice additions, but why no "See Also"

I think some "See Also" would be useful in addition to what you have embedded within the article. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 Hi, I wonder if you can take time and participate in reviewing the Electron backscatter diffraction article and support or oppose my feature article nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electron backscatter diffraction/archive1. Thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Ping me if I get distracted and don't respond soonish Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Further reading

@Materialscientist I dont think WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here. See Wikipedia:Further reading FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Electron backscatter diffraction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keresluna (talk · contribs) 16:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll review this chemistry article, but might be a little slow in doing it. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Grammar

Feel free to reject these suggestions as you see fit. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• 'grain structure, grains orientation,' → 'grain structure, grain orientation,' Y
• 'wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (WDS)' →'wavelength-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (WDS)' Y

Pattern formation and collection

• 'compact lens which focuses the image' → 'compact lens that focuses the image'
• 'intersections form what are known as Kikuchi patterns or electron backscatter patterns' → 'intersections form what is known as Kikuchi patterns or electron backscatter patterns' Y
• 'to the crystal orientation (based upon their interplanar angles).' → 'to the crystal orientation (based on their interplanar angles).' Y
• 'one must use a many beam dynamical' → 'one must use a many-beam dynamical' Y
• 'EBSP quality is sensitive to the surface preparation' → 'EBSP quality is sensitive to surface preparation' Y
• 'do not mention a definition, or do not even present' → 'do not mention a definition or do not even present' Y

Orientation and phase mapping

• 'leading methods of the indexing performed by most' → 'leading methods of indexing performed by most' Y
• 'algorithms and calculations, but is essential' → 'algorithms and calculations but is essential' Y
• 'each of these methods are cumbersome' → 'each of these methods is cumbersome' Y
• 'Recent development of AstroEBSD and PCGlobal' → 'The recent development of AstroEBSD and PCGlobal' Y

Strain measurement

• 'measured geometrical shifts from in the pattern' → 'measured geometrical shifts in the pattern' Y
• 'by using Einstein summation convention with symmetry' → 'by using the Einstein summation convention with symmetry' Y
• 'which can produce an accurate measurements' → 'which can produce accurate measurements' (note: I don't think you need the wikilink to accurate in there) Y (left the wiki-link, accuracy and precision are normally confused)

Applications

• 'average atomic number of the sample, and is used' → 'average atomic number of the sample and is used'
• 'which has been introduced around 1970s, and' → 'which has been introduced around the 1970s, and' Y
• 'prepared for TKD using an FIB or ion milling machine' → 'prepared for TKD using a FIB or ion milling machine' Y

thanks for the these comments. I left some of the Oxford commas FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional comments

The chart in the section 'Precision and development' needs proper axes, for an example, see lithium thiocyanate. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Keresluna you left 'y' outside, i.e., {{GAList/check|}y}. maybe you want to correct that FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Reduction of introduction.

I boldly and severely shortened the introduction. I assume the cut material is all already in the article.

IMO the introduction was too long and had too many unfamiliar, highly specific words. A short intro is much more useful to readers.

I hope this edit is helpful; I don't have any agenda here other than trying to come in with a fresh suggestion. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents., thus; the lead need to be expansed not shorten to include 3D EBSD and Transmission Kikuchi diffraction.

Saying that the the introduction was too long is actually not correct as the introduction was short for the length of the article see MOS:LEADLENGTH. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

While the reduction from Johnjbarton was a bit harsh, I do think it is going in the right direction. For instance, how important is it to mention that the sample is tilted right at the beginning? Terms such as "diffuse quality" are complicated; I know what you mean but nobody without a background in TEM/SEM/ED will.

Further, reading the reviews for your WP:FA, they got confused by the Pattern formation... section because too much new was being introduced. Being pedantic, what is elastic scattering, Kikuchi diffraction etc?

I think you need something after the Lead and before you get into details. As a possible example, see Electron diffraction#Description. I tried to write that gently. I also put other material such as scope (Archie's suggestion) into that. I had problems with the Lead, and there is an alternative at User:Johnjbarton/Electron Diffraction Sandbox which has a lot to be said for it, but I felt went too small as there are horrors such as Fresnel/Fraunhoffer and differentiating from diffraction as used in a Double-slit experiment. Remember the old adage: in a talk anyone should understand the first 5 minutes, a science undergrad the first 10 and then you can let loose.

N.B., one problem you can see if you look at how many WP:GA and WP:Afc science articles there are in the queue compared to others is that scientists are a minority. Hence it is unlikely that you will be reviewed by someone with much technical background.

N.N.B., remember, it is only approximately Bragg diffraction -- both mean inner potential and dynamical/dispersion surface effects mean it is 1-2% off. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits need sourcing

Dear BenBritton, while your edit to add Claire Maurice may be correct, at present it is unsourced so should (in principle) be removed. Please add the references, I suspect they are already in the article but I will leave that to you. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)