Talk:Fiveling

Self citation disclosure

This article contains self citation by one of the original editors (Ldm1954) to the Marks decahedra. As described in the article, there were two papers in 1983 and 1984 from Ldm1954 in Journal of Crystal Growth and Philosophical Magazine where a general model for the shape of fivelings was described. Other authors confirmed the shape, and in 1991 Charles Cleveland and Uzi Landman coined the name Marks decahedron for this type of particle. The name was subsequently adopted by the community and is widely used. The original article contains 13 citations to this editors work (out of 128), and two of the current twelve figures are from the editors work. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledgements

To Johan Kjellman, Mark Mauther, Mike Rumsey, Klaus Schäfer, Emilie Ringe, David J. Wales and Miguel José Yacamán for information and the donation of Creative Commons images. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs) 19:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   plagiarism check only 2% (Violation Unlikely) from scientific terms

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

The review process started earlier informally in April and this is building on that

Previous comments

This section is an excerpt from User talk:FuzzyMagma/Archives/ 5 § Comments on an article please.[edit]

I would be interested in your comments on Draft:Fiveling; there do not seem to be many active material scientists. I am still waiting for a couple of images from people before moving forward with a final version. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Very nice work @Ldm1954. I will read it in details ASAP. If you feel like nominating the article to a GA, please do and I will review it by the end of April. I’m sure it will pass with some minor comments. Thanks for writing such a detailed article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

a very superficial look into a really excellent article

• ... or a five-fold twin is a type of twinned particle should it be "twinned crystal".Y
• (They also observed single crys .., remove the bracket. Y
• (see later), make an internal link using #, as you did with large volumes -- see also Ybelow.
• cite some sources to avoid WP:weasel (as you did in different parts) for

• While most of the details of the formation of fiveling nanoparticles are now understood,Y
• Many papers have suggested possible links to heterogeneous catalysts.Y
• In crystals the strains can be slightly different, the full details of which are still being debated., here it helps the reader (including myself) to find more detailsY text was changed
• No experimental evidence has been found for this process.Y I removed the sentence

• The figure labelled Atomistic simulation of disclination movement in decahedral particles, showing .. can be made bigger.Y

• , hence the question of what is that you asking? Avoid editorialising as per MOS:EDITORIAL, the next sentence need sourcing if it is not from the Berry and Wales work. Y

• similar to While there are similarities, they are not the same and quasicrystals are now considered to be different from fivelings and the related icosahedral structures.Y
• Further reading section might be worth it and will compliment the External links section.  I will think about this one. Off hand there is nothing that is not already in the article. I may add in later weeks/months.
• there is a space at the end of "See also" sectionY
• redlink Marks decahedron and Ino decahedron, I think they fit the Wikipedia:Red link or at least be bolden and redirect should be created to point to the section about them

• for Formation at the nanoscale section, can you also upload some images from In Situ Atomic-Scale Observation of 5-Fold Twin Formation in Nanoscale Crystal under Mechanical Loading article, they are available under CC-BY 4.0.Y
• Do we need a section for Formation at the micro-scale (more than 100 nanometres), see this exampleY It is in there, since the drawing from Rose is (probably) mm in size, and the photograph of the gold particle later is 0.5cm. Multiple sources say that they just grow larger and are metastable (already mentioned and cited), we can't say more because transforming a mm size fiveling to a single crystal has never occurred.
• How about a section about their effect: given my background, I understand they have a profound effect on the (micro)mechanical properties, e.g., 1 and 2. I added a bit, but I think it is a bit of a digression. In the process of hunting I found Nanomechanics which needs major work, no refs
• last thing, the article name, it seems that "five-fold twin" is used widely than Fiveling. See WP:COMMONNAME   There are too many names! Fiveling was the original one, so I will stay with that. There are redirects

PS: it is really intimidating to review the work of someone with your in-depth knowledge about the topic. You have a a significant scientific phenomena named after you! so my review will be mostly about how we can get more from you :). Thank you for work. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions, most of which I have incorporated. I just moved it to main space, and will add some links. I want to wait a week before doing a GA nomination, but I do think that is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

nice work, do not forget to expand the lead FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead expanded, and GA nomination done (why not). Ldm1954 (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

if it is not review by the end of May, I will give it go. Bit busy these days.. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I will be in vacation May 30-June 25 so it might need to be later. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

will keep that in mind FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Current comments

Please feel free to challenge any of the following comments

• for note a and b, remove the bolding for words, as per MOS:NOBOLD. You can use single quote or {{em|...}} if you want to emphasise.FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y
• (optional) for the first mention of "Marks decahedron" in the lead, can you please reference that using this reference Oxford Chemistry or Oxford Chemistry just to avoid any comments about COI especially that I do not see you have worked with Jonathan Doye, as these notes are used to teach postgraduate students. Feel free to choose any other text book source.FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y I added both the original naming and the book (thesis) you mentioned.
• The last image in the article, there is a scale bar, can you add the value of that scale bar to the caption please.FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y
• (optional) for image "Atomistic simulation of disclination movement in decahedral particles ..." see if you want to change the length to 300px (currently the width is 300px).FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y I compromised by making it 362x250
• use dmy and Use American English template at the top of the page, near the description.FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y, although it is "Use" not tq.
• remove wikilink for "re referred to as a type of cyclic twins where.."Y The twin pages are less detailed than here, so now they link fivelings to this page.

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.

Intractable dispute over categories

Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) and I cannot agree on which categories to include in this article. I think Ldm1954's preferred categories are overly broad, but they think mine are overly specific, and they have repeatedly reverted me. They also want to include categories that are redundant to lower ones, particularly Category:Chemistry, without good reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears very clear that LaundryPizza03 has not read and understood the article. A broad GA article spans many areas, but he wants to just use a small set of limited categories. He refuses to explain or justify his approach on scientific or other grounds despite repeated requests, just stating that they are "too broad". This is not an appropriate approach. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem I've seen is that some of your categories are redundant to their subcategories, which almost always means that the higher category is unnecessary. In particular, almost all of the categories you've used are subcategories of Category:Chemistry, but you insist on placing this article directly in this extremely broad category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are the defend this you need sources, not just statements. You continually remove "materials science", presumably believing that "nanoparticles" is enough. This is scientifically wrong. As an academic who has taught MSE for many years this is an expert opinion.

• Disclinations and elasticity are classic materials science.
• Nucleation is classic materials science.
• Materials science is not a subdisciple of chemistry, neither is condensed-matter physics. Most R1 universities have large MSE and physics departments. (I have left physical chemistry but it's relevance is very marginal.)
• Please do the research and check the departments/backgrounds of the key players. You will find them in chemistry, materials science and physics.
• If you are going to convince me or anyone else you will need to defend your statements with hard sources. Please read WP:COMPETENCE again. As the aggressor the onus is on you.

Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

N.B., if you don't want to believe a grey-haired academic, look at what Wikipedia is popping up as related àt the bottom -- not just chemistry areas. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And, simpler just read the lead which is deliberately inclusive:

Information about them is distributed across a diverse range of scientific disciplines, mainly chemistry, materials science, mineralogy, nanomaterials and physics. Because many different names have been used, sometimes the information in the different disciplines or within any one discipline is fragmented and overlapping.

Your limited category approach is not supported by the science. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, @Ldm1954: I believe this issue should be decided be WP policies for categorization, which I didn’t see any reference to when I scanned the above discussion. (If this is not accurate, please forgive me and correct ne.) Neither of your arguments is inherently wrong, the question at hand is which one confirms to WP:CAT. In particular, please consider the general rules WP:CATSPECIFIC and WP:DIFFUSE and the exceptions WP:DUPCAT. I have not looked at the categories being discussed, so I cannot say which proposal is in accord with WP policies. YBG (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@YBG & @LaundryPizza03, clearly relevant are both WP:CATDD and WP:OC The original categories that @LaundryPizza03 added were, being blunt, trivial ones.

Beyond that, it seems @LaundryPizza03 is following only the first of WP:CATDD, which I have pointed out multiple times is inappropriate. My argument is supported by the 2nd & 3rd guidance notes:

When categorizing pages:

DO:

YUse the most specific categories possible.

YCategorize based on defining characteristics.

YAdd pages to multiple categories in overlapping trees.

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that adding it to cat:chemistry is in keeping with either the second or third notes, given it is in one or more subcats thereof. Is the defining characteristic simply "chemistry", somehow other than nano, physical, materials, and crystallography? The third note means it goes in each of those subcats, not subcat and parent cat. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is where things are complex. For instance, it has secondary relevance in heterogeneous catalysis, which is certainly not nano as it predates it so much. I am OK with combining physical & solid-state chemistry (as it is not organic), although some could argue for inorganic. As the lead indicates, you will find it in many areas, fivelings are not niche Ldm1954 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)