User talk:BonPhire/Nitrogen-vacancy center

This is my feedback. Jmkinder1 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on the article

General feedback

The specific details are interesting and clear. You have also compiled a very useful list of references. Nice work!

Both the diagram and description of initialization in "State manipulation" are good: clear and informative. The "Optical properties" section is also quite good.

However, the information did not seem organized coherently into a single article. That is, I did not see a single idea tying all the information together. I found this section helpful: [style, and tone]. I recommend adopting either the "inverted pyramid" approach within the individual sections of the article, and maybe for the article as a whole. I also think the presentation would be clearer if it was more concise.

What follows are specific recommendations. Don't hesitate to ignore them if they seem incorrect or if you disagree with them. And don't hesitate to ask questions for clarification, if I can help.

Specific recommendations

I find the "schematic energy level structure" figure confusing, but I am not an expert with such diagrams. It seems unusual to have one splitting in eV and others in gauss.

Items 5 and 6 in the list are not grammatically consistent with Items 1 through 4. I suggest expanding Items 5 and 6 to match the first four factors: explain how the spin orbit interaction and temperature affect the splittings and couplings between levels.

The last sentence of "Energy level structure" is confusing: "... which suggested the use of the NV center." Use for what?

This passage in "State manipulation" might be better with a more detached tone:

"Thinking of the NV center as a multielectronic system, we can draw the diagram in the figure on the left, where the states are labeled according to their symmetry and with a left superscript that indicates with a 3 if it is a triplet (S=1) and with a 1 if it is a singlet (S=0)."

A more detached tone might be something like the following:

"The diagram on the left shows the multi-electronic states of the NV center labeled according to their symmetry (E or A) and their spin state (3 for a triplet, 1 for a singlet)."

I've also read Wikipedia style guides that encourage authors to avoid language like "It is well accepted today that ..." The preferred style is either (1) to make the statement and provide a citation, or (2) to attribute the statement:

(1) "There are two triplet states and two intermediate singlet states. [16]"

(2) "Doherty et al. found evidence of two triplet states and two intermediate triplet states. [16]"

It seems like "(Ground/Excited State Level Anticrossing - GSLAC/ESLAC)" is a technical term and abbreviation that is not referred to later in the article. Unless there is going to be more information about this effect later --- or in another article? --- I would recommend cutting it.

I recommend changing "in a similar fashion to the magnetic field mechanism outlined above" to "similar to the Zeeman effect" (if that statement is, in fact, correct).

The ISC note probably needs a citation.

Minor grammar and spelling

"off-resonantly" ---> "off resonance"
"At low temperature oit also" ---> "... it also ..."
"change their charge stay and become dark" ---> "... charge state ..."?
"of ≤546nm" ---> "of less than 546 nm"
"State Manipulation" ---> "State manipulation" (Wikipedia style for titles)
"Optical Spin Manipulation" ---> "Optical spin manipulation"
"Spin-State Initialization" ---> "Spin-state initialization"
"Microwave Spin Manipulation" ---> "Microwave spin manipulation"
"Charge State Manipulation" ---> "Charge state manipulation"
"is enough toexplain" ---> "... to explain ..."

Keep up the good work!

Thank you so much Jmkinder1. I largely agree with your points and feel encouraged to make stronger alterations to the old version. BonPhire (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]