Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Synthetic diamond/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 2 June 2009 [1].

Synthetic diamond

[edit]
Nominator(s): NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an official web site of a scientific project started around 1997 or so.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? It needs a publisher listed in the article, as do a few other references. Mm40 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now from Cryptic C62 · Talk:
    • "is diamond produced in a technological process, as opposed to natural diamond, which is produced by geological processes." First instance of "process" uses the preposition "in". Second instance uses "by". These should be consistent; my !vote is for "by".
      "Produced by a man/woman IN technological process" and "produced BY geological process" might not need unification. 3rd opinion needed. If unify, my vote is for "in".
    • "Synthetic diamonds should not be confused with" Wikipedia is WP:NOT a diamond buyer's guide. This sentence should be reworded to avoid the abuse of the phrase "should not be confused with". I think the inclusion of enhanced diamonds is unnecessary at this point. I suggest that the section be reworded to emphasize the difference between synthetic diamond and diamond simulants.
      done Actually, I have deleted this part before, but some copyeditor restored it.
    • Throughout the article (including the lead), you switch between "synthetic diamond is" and "synthetic diamonds are", where the singular is used to describe the material and the plural is used to describe the gemstones. I realize that these are different, but in situations where you have a choice between the two (such as the very first sentence), consistency would be helpful for the readers. Although the plural seems more intuitive to me, I suppose it makes more sense to use the singular, as this makes it clear that the article is not limited to jewelry, but to the various applications of this material.
      done
      Striking for now. I'll let you know if I catch any other instances. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of the lead begins with "Synthetic diamond is made using two major processes: chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) synthesis." There are several instances in this paragraph in which there are apparently comparisons being made between the two processes without making it clear which ones you are talking about: "some synthetic diamonds" and "Certain synthetic diamonds". What is the point of introducing the two processes if they aren't included in the discussion? Conversely, what is the point of discussing the processes if it isn't made clear which one(s) you're discussing?
      done
      Erm, not really. Simply cutting out material and adding "(either HPHT or CVD)" doesn't quite cut it. I'm particularly concerned with the following statement: "Its properties depend on the details of the manufacturing processes, and can be inferior, similar or superior to those of natural diamond." I assume that the broad spectrum of possibilities is due primarily to the variety of ways in which synthetic diamond is produced. If this is the case, and if you are keen on keeping this somewhat useless sentence, you should elaborate upon which properties are better/worse for each process. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Notes: mentioning those two major production processes is essential for the lead. However, the spectrum of possibilities does not hinge on the process (i.e. imagine one process does not exist - most applications would remain). Properties do depend on the process. The questioned sentence "Its properties depend .." is for introduction only. It is detailed by the next sentence. Comparing all properties of CVD and HPHT diamond is beyond the scope of the lead and the article. Please reconsider or explain what is needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps I am being mislead by the fact that you've essentially lumped a summary of Manufacturing technologies with Properties. I suggest splitting this paragraph of the lead into multiple paragraphs. This would also allow you to expand the manufacturing technologies bit to include explosive detonation and ultrasound cavitation.
      I've reformulated the lead as requested. Please check. If style comments, please propose a sentence or rewrite yourself.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend not to rewrite material unless I am certain that I fully understand it and that I won't change its meaning by rewriting it. When I am not certain, but have a good idea, I'll propose a replacement sentence. It is when I really don't understand the purpose of a sentence at all that I do neither. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Their advantages for electronic applications have been demonstrated." If I were a Spartan, and my wife begat this sentence, I would have left it on the hillside, as it appears to be entirely useless. "have been demonstrated" is ambiguous and WP:WEASELY. "Their advantages" is vague. That this sentence appears after the bit about heat sinks is also odd, as heat sinks are often used in electronics.
      done
      The replacement sentence is still (perhaps even more) awkward, and you response to my next point says that electronic applications don't exist yet. This has not been made clear in either version of the sentence. Also, heat sinks are used in electronics, aren't they? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, heat sinks are used in electronics, but not only. I feel this comments hinges on writing style and now tried to carefully separate "passive" and "active" electronic applications. NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Detectors of UV light or high-energy particles, made of synthetic diamond, are being applied at high-energy research facilities and are already available commercially." The use of "already" implies that the reader should, at this point in the article, be somewhat familiar with the timeline of synthetic diamond UV detectors, which won't be true for the vast majority of readers.
      "Already" leaned on the previous sentence, saying that electronic applications are not here yet, but detectors are already available. No slide to knowledge of detectors.
      See my response above; it is relevant to this issue as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      see response above and in the text.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps instead of just saying "electronic applications", you should actually list some potential applications. This would be more useful for the reader and might make this section flow better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because of a unique combination of thermal and chemical stability, low thermal expansion and high optical transparency in the wide spectral range, synthetic diamond is becoming the most popular material for optical windows in high-power CO2 lasers and gyrotrons." Why "the" wide spectral range? Shouldn't it be "a" wide spectral range? Also, avoid the use of the indirect "a" for "unique combination", as it leaves some ambiguity as to whether the unique combination belongs to synthetic diamond or to optical windows.
      done
    • "either clear white or colored yellow, brown, blue or even green or orange" This is a very poorly constructed list: It uses "either" despite there being more than two items in the list. It uses "or" three times. "Or even" is unnecessary unless you go on to explain why green and orange are unusual colors.
      done
      Not yet. Please reread the last sentence of my comment. It still applies to this version. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This creates major concerns in the diamond trading business" What creates major concerns? The wide variety of colors? Or the mere fact that synthetic diamond can be cut into gems? Also, "creates" implies that these synthetic gemstones are a source of perpetual consternation for diamond traders, but the rest of the paragraph implies that these concerns have been taken care of by the "special" spectroscopic techniques.
      done "Techniques" were introduced to fight the problem; they did not take care of it. The problems is serious and remains.
    • A few little things: I'm fairly certain that "et al" is supposed to be italicized: et al. Non-breaking spaces should be used between numbers and abbreviated units; see WP:NBSP. All ranges of numbers should use endashes, not hyphens; see WP:DASH. I've corrected a few instances of each of these problems in this diff.
      done
      Looks good for now, I'll keep my eye out for others. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LEAD states that the lead must summarize all of the main sections of the article. Unless I am misreading, I don't see anything in the lead which pertains to the History section.
      done.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but none of them could be confirmed." If the attempts have been documented, why cant they be confirmed? Also, "could be confirmed" implies that the person who did the research (you) could not find the sources, which doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist.
      I can't find a better word for "confirmed". "Reproduced" would mean diamond had been grown, which is not. Many claimants later retracted their own claims (e.g. ref. [9], C.H. Desch (1928)). Further, there was a series of investigations into success of those early attempts, analyzing the conditions and products. Trying to be as neutral as possible, they carefully selected respected and neutral scientists (talked to one of them). No single report could confirm the diamonds were produced (e.g. ref. [5] K. Lonsdale (1962).NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see. I interpreted "none of them could be confirmed" to mean "none of the attempts could be confirmed by secondary sources", but what you meant was "non of them could be confirmed to have been successful." Suggestion to reduce ambiguity: "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but it is unclear if any of these attempts were successful." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose because every attempt was investigated later (unique history, demonstrating the power of diamond business world) and was found unsuccessful. I slightly rewrote. Please have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (former NIMSoffice - changed name)[reply]
      Valid. I also slightly rewrote for grammar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first reproducible synthesis, by the HPHT and possibly CVD methods, was reported around 1953." The "possibly CVD methods" bit tells me that there may have been some discrepancy between the sources. Readers who are less familiar with research might misinterpret this. In any case, this piece of information isn't really critical to the lead. Suggested rewrite: "The first reproducible diamond synthesis was reported around 1953."
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In this method" Which method? It would be helpful to include the name of the process.
      Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fourth diamond synthesis varity" Uh... what?
      Typo. Should be variety. Has no name yet. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caption:"Synthetic diamonds of various colors grown by the high-pressure high-temperature technique, the diamond size is ~2 mm" Improper comma use. Either incorporate the diamond size into the sentence or split into two sentences. Also, what dimension does "diamond size" refer to? Height? Radius?
      Tried to fix, meaning the longest measure of the largest diamond in the picture. Please reformulate if needed. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hrm. On second thought, it might be better to simply include a scale in the image itself.
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yikes, that's a pretty pathetic scale bar. The image should be able to exist on its own without requiring a caption to explain the purpose of the white smudge. I'd be happy to try to try making a scale bar myself in MS Paint, but you've brightened the original image. I'd like to preserve that change, so if you upload a brightened non-smudgebar version, I'll make a scale bar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving on to the History section: "many attempts were made to alter the cheaper forms of carbon" It's not entirely clear what the goal here is. What exactly does "alter" mean? Were people trying to make diamond exclusively, or were they trying to replicate the various allotropes of carbon?
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ruff claimed in 1917" The first instance of a person's name should include that person's first name(s). The person's profession is also helpful.
      Name added. A previous sentence said that Ruff was a scientist, not much more is known. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "were the result of seeding by well-intentioned co-workers" What is "seeding"? "well-intentioned" seems somewhat speculative and fanciful. Even without that bit, this seems to be an unusually specific conclusion. Surely the sources must present some other ideas, or at least a more general one.
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm glad that the sentence is clearer (although somewhat informal), but it is still fundamentally flawed. I read through Ref 6 (Lonsdale 1962), and there is no mention of the possibility of seeding by frustrated technicians, and with good reason: This is too specific a conclusion to make based on such old and unclear information. I don't have access to Ref 7 (O'Donoghue 2006), but I suspect that if it does indeed mention this idea, it treats it as just one possibility. Assuming this is the case, I suggest either rewording the sentence to make it clearer to the reader that it is speculative, or just deleting it entirely so as not to mislead the reader. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 5 (Lonsdale 1962) is just a list of citations. Perhaps I can't see the whole article because I don't have access to the subscription-only database. Assuming that it is indeed just a list, I don't quite see the point of including it.
      Seeing only reference list universally means you don't have access to full text; the latter is available at http://67.50.46.175/paperspdf/lons-k1962.pdf (no, not my server, and I don't know how comes its free there. By far not the first case though). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most definitive duplication attempts were performed by Sir Charles Algernon Parsons" Suggest "replication" instead of "duplication". Also, approximately when did his work begin?
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He devoted 30 years and a considerable part of his fortune" Not very neutral language. Suggest swapping out "devoted" with "spent". Suggest including some sort of numerical estimate like "over $300,000" instead of "a considerable part of his fortune."
      Swapped. No info on money spent. Parsons was a Knight and had a fortune from his steam turbine invention; might well be he never disclosed the amount (at least, he did not have to).Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as well as those of Hannay" Who? Also, the note after this sentence, Ref 7 (Hannay 1879) is authored by Hannay. It seems to me that instead of using the ref to verify the statement, you are using it as an example of Hannay's work. While both uses of the citation system are acceptable, they should not be mixed. Separate lists should be used: one for "further information"-type notes, one for references.
      I'm glad to fix, but don't see a problem: the sentence in passing mentions another diamond synthesis attempt (by Hannay) and the reference supports the fact of that experiment (not the fact of its reproduction). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not how I interpret it, and I seriously doubt any reader will see it that way either. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hannay moved up with his ref, which is actually more fair for history and text, and should solve the problem.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However in 1928 he authorized C.H. Desch" Who is C.H. Desch? A student of his? A journal editor?
      Dr. Desch. Scientist. No further information. Not assistant or student of Parsons. Unusual - yes, but so was the whole story. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was believed that on one occasion a diamond was produced, but since experiments could not be reproduced such claims could not be maintained" Several problems. "It was believed" is a weasel phrase. That section should be more definitive: Was anything published about this supposed diamond? Also, does "experiments could not be reproduced" mean that the experiments were attempted again but were unsuccessful? Or does it mean that, because of the inherent complexity of the apparatus, it was impossible to reproduce the experiment at all? Does "such claims could not be maintained" mean that the authors of the claim later retracted it?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but it still includes the weasel phrase. I suggest trying to incorporate "the team reported" or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press" What is meant by "elegant"? Large? Energy efficient?
      Deleted (technical weasel). Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C" It is unclear to which apparatus what you are comparing the belt press. The tungsten carbide anvils? The 1941 experiment?
      Explained. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press apparatus which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C, using a pyrophyllite container, and having the graphite dissolved within molten nickel, cobalt or iron, a "solvent-catalyst"." Once the specific issues are resolved, this entire sentence needs to be rewritten. It is unclear if the belt press, pyrophillite container, and dissolved graphite clauses are all specific components of the breakthrough or if they relate more directly to each other.
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but still a bit awkward: "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C as compared to hydraulic presses." It's clear that the pressure is being compared to the hydraulic presses, but it's unclear what the deal is with the temperature. It might be clearer to just drop the comparison altogether and give straight numbers: "which was capable of producing pressures above 18 GPa and temperatures above 2400 C."
      Indeed. Thanks. Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "clearly unsuitable for jewelry" Another weasel word. Why "clearly"? Too big? Too small?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hall was able to have co-workers replicate his work" This is oddly worded. Why not just "Hall's co-workers were able to replicate his work" ?
      Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was the first person to grow a synthetic diamond according to a reproducible, verifiable and witnessed process and received a gold medal of the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work" Incorrect usage of "according to". How about "using"? Suggest changing "witnessed" to "well-documented". This is a long unbroken sentence. I suggest splitting it or adding some punctuation.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and three years later developed a completely independent apparatus for the synthesis of diamond (the tetrahedral press with four anvils)" Not sure what you mean by "completely independent". Perhaps "entirely new" ? The explanation should not be preceded by "the", nor should it be in parentheses. These imply that the reader should already be familiar with the device.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture: The image of the belt press is clearly very modern. This may be misleading to the readers since the paragraphs next to it deal with the 40s and 50s. I suggest expanding the caption to more clearly indicate the era in which the photograph was taken.
      Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hall received a gold medal from the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work." Did Hall really receive a medal in 1972 for his work from 1954? Or was this sentence supposed to be at the end of the paragraph? In either case, it should probably be verified by another ref, one specific to the ACS.
      Indeed, the award did not specify which diamond work (I assumed 1954, BTW 18 yrs delay was usual in mat. science :). Fixed, with references.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Another successful diamond synthesis was produced" Odd wording. Should probably be either "Another synthetic diamond was successfully produced" or "Another successful diamond synthesis was achieved."
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sweden's major electrical manufacturing company" This would probably going to be a source of contention if any of ASEA's competitors read this article. I would suggest rewriting to a somewhat weaker statement: "one of Sweden's major electrical manufacturing companies." or some such.
      Done.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as part of a top-secret diamond-making project" The use of "top-secret" seems a bit childish. Is this really how the source described the project?
      No kidding. Nothing was known about Swedish project until 80s. (I see relation between diamond business and diamond synthesis as a modern version of the medieval church-to-astronomy history :) Even now, few sources document details of that project (names, dates, publication titles, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I believe that it was a very secretive project. I'm just asking if the sources actually used the phrase "top-secret". If not (and perhaps even if they did), we could probably come up with a more encyclopedic alternative, such as "highly secretive" or "classified" or "clandestine". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I actually copy-pasted the term from the reference book. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Baltzar von Platen (1898–1984) and Anders Kämpe (1928–1984)" Not sure why their lifespans are included, especially since none of the other scientists mentioned in this article are given this treatment. Indeed, the fact that they died in the same year may be confusing for some readers, as it implies that the design was completed in 1984 and that they had been working on it for a long time.
      Years deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A few small crystals were produced, but not of gem quality or size." Crystals of diamond?
      Yes. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a new competitor emerged in Korea named Iljin Diamond" When I first read this, I thought Iljin Diamond was someone's name. I was like "wow, that's convenient. He's working on synthetic diamond and his last name is Diamond?" Suggest rewording to make it clearer that that is the name of a company, though I'm not sure how you would go about doing that.
      Reformulated. (I know one good scientist with this last name, but not in the diamond field :) Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "followed later by hundreds of Chinese entrants" Entrants in what?
      Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished this" accomplished what?
      Diamond synthesis. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished diamond synthesis by misappropriating trade secrets from GE via a Korean former GE employee in 1988" This sentence is somewhat ambiguous. What happened in 1988, the synthesis or the misappropriation (or both)? Did Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplish diamond synthesis, or did he definitively accomplish diamond synthesis by means of an alleged misappropriation?
      Fixed. BTW, this was another display of power (of diamond business): not only that difficult, ("international") case was won, but the Korean government had to revise their laws, and GE managed to close down the diamond production at IIjin. The case entered law books as example of trade wars. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Later developments section seems to be out of order. Why is there information about the 1980s before the information about the 1970s?
      I understand the concern, but please note the word gem-quality which is the key there. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, I suppose it's not that critical that it be in chronological order. It does seem to flow more logically with the gem-quality diamonds coming after the rest of it. "Gem-quality" doesn't need to be italicized, though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Synthetic gem-quality diamond crystals were first produced in 1970 (reported in 1971) again by GE" The "again" is somewhat ambiguous. Had gem-quality diamonds been produced before, making this the second instance? Or does "again" refer to GE's consistent ability to provide breakthroughs in the field? In the latter case, I suggest removing "again" to avoid the confusion.
      "Again" removed. Yes, the latter was meant. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Large crystals need to grow very slowly under tightly controlled conditions." This sentence disrupts the flow of the paragraph. The information it provides is not relevant until several sentences later.
      Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first successes used a pyrophyllite tube seeded at each end with thin pieces of diamond and with the graphite feed material placed in the center, the metal solvent, nickel, was placed between the graphite and the seeds." This is a run-on sentence. I suggest reworking to split it up or otherwise make it flow better.
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The container was heated and the pressure was raised to ~5.5 GPa" Scientists and mathematicians will know what the tilde represents, but many readers will not. I suggest replacing all instances with "approximately" or some variant thereof.
      ~ is replaced all through.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The graphite feed was soon replaced by diamond grit, as there was almost no change in material volume so the process was easier to control." As this sentence is written, it is unclear what the causes and effects are. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, please do. If not, would you mind explaining it to me so we can figure a better wording?
      Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Better, but now you've introduced technical jargon. What are "morphology" and "crustal"? Suggest explaining, wikilinking, or avoiding.
      morphology→shape and crustal→crystal.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Removing all nitrogen from the process by adding aluminum or titanium produced colorless "white" stones, and removing the nitrogen and adding boron produced blue ones. However, removing nitrogen slows the growth process and reduces the crystalline quality, so the process is normally run with nitrogen present" [Bolding added for emphasis]. The first sentence is written in the past tense, whereas the second sentence is written in the present.
      Converted to the more appropriate past tense.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In terms of physical properties, the GE stones were not quite identical to natural stones." I assume that this sentence is trying to convey the following: "Although the GE stones and natural diamonds are chemically identical, their physical properties were not the same." Yes?
      Yes, thank you. Placed in the text. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The colorless stones produced strong short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively) under short-wavelength ultraviolet light but were inert under long-wave UV (among natural diamonds, only rare blue stones do this)" A couple of issues here. First, this rather long sentence can be shortened by removing "short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively)" with just "fluorescence and phosphorescence". Second, if you wish to use "UV" rather than spelling out the entire phrase again, you must put "(UV)" after the first instance of "ultraviolet". Finally, the second parenthetical remark would probably be clearer if it were set off into a separate sentence and expanded slightly: "Among natural diamonds, only the rarer blue gems exhibit these properties."
      Shortened. UV defined (my fault, in science literature some abbreviations should not be defined).Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries. When in doubt, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All the GE stones also showed strong yellow fluorescence under X-rays" While the previous sentence made a clear comparison between the GE stones and natural diamonds, this statement does not. I suggest either expanding or deleting.
      Could well be deleted, but I reformulated instead.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has since grown, for research purposes only, stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g)." At this point, it is unclear what "since" refers to, as the last mention of a date was 1970. "for research purposes only" seems redundant. The name of the organization includes the word "research", does it not?
      "Since" deleted, "research" not. Names mean little in the business world (you might hear fancy brands like "Rhodium Heart Charm" with no relation to rhodium, etc. :). To get serious, De Beers is the king of the diamond world, and the biggest sponsor of the diamond research. For a good reason, they have separately stated, everywhere they could, that they never grew diamonds for gems.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, but by inserting that into the middle of the sentence, it almost reads as though you're advertising what nice guys they are. I think a suitable compromise would be to move it to the end of the sentence: "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has grown stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g) for research purposes." Alternatively, if you can find concise examples of how they use the diamonds for research, that would work too. If you really want to make it clear that De Beers is research only, perhaps it would be better to show the reader rather than to tell the reader, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Moved to the end. Its Ok to tell about DeBeers research, but in another FA :) Their range is vast and they tell nobody what they are up to. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For growing such diamonds, stable HPHT conditions have to be kept for 6 weeks." Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I suggest rewording to avoid the "have to" construction.
      Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, most stones are 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg) for economic reasons, especially with the spread of the Russian BARS apparatus since the 1980s" First, most of which stones? Those produced by De Beers? Second, the second clause is entirely confusing to those readers (all of them, I'd imagine) who are not already familiar with the BARS apparatus. If you think it is important enough to be mentioned here, I would suggest expanding it. If not, I would suggest removing it.
      Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Those large stones were a mere demonstration." Demonstration of what? To whom?
      I expanded to "demonstration of the growth possibilities." Not much meaning here. Please tweak as you like. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I went ahead and deleted it. It doesn't really add anything to the article and the paragraph flows much better without it. Do you agree? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the growth of most synthetic diamonds is interrupted" The word "interrupted" often implies that the process continues after the interruption has ended. Perhaps "halted" or "terminated" or "stopped"?
      Sure. I chose "terminated". Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "when they reach weight 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg)" I'm not familiar with diamond trade literature, but shouldn't this be "they reach a weight of 1 carat" ?
      Sure. Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a fact tag to the end of this paragraph. Some of the information about De Beers may be covered by Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge, but statements with numbers must be followed by an inline citation.
      Ref. added. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tweaked the first few sentences of the next paragraph. Let me know if I screwed anything up.
      Somebody already tweaked Soviet Union, and I support that. I slightly changed the CVD statement. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Eversole reportedly achieved vapor deposition" What is Eversole? A wikilink or a brief introductory phrase, such as "Eversole, a material engineering company," would be helpful.
      "William G. Eversole" :) Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Lol, humans ftw. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Russian team" It won't be obvious to all readers that Deryagin and Fedoseev are Russian names. Suggest replacing Deryagin and Fedoseev with "a Russian team" or "the Russian team" with "Deryagin and Fedoseev".
      For several good reasons I chose the latter. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.NIMSoffice (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:FAC instructions (do not use templates), and pls sign posts. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to decide if you're going with last name first or first name firsts for the references. Most seem to be first initial first, so suggest going with that. (Current refs 1 (Royere), 3 (Nassau), 8 (Hazen) are last name first)
done NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 7 (Parsons articles...) lacks a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source, it's a jewelry store?
Still need to tell me why this is a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That web-site posts rare diamond books for free, thereby hoping to attract buyers (nice trick, isn't). I have replaced that link by "genuine" books and peer-reviewed articles. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following books need page numbers:
    • Current ref 3 (Nassau)
    • Current ref 8 (Hazen)
    • Current ref 11 (Barnard)
    • Current ref 37 (Koizumi)
  • Current ref 10 (Liander) is this a journal article? If so, we need the title of the article
  • Current ref 17 (Deryagin and Fedoseev) is this a journal article? If so, we need the title of the article
  • Current ref 18 (HPHT Synthesis...) needs a publisher.
  • Current ref 35 (CVD...) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 47 (Blind to the ..) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 49 (Heartwig...) needs a publisher
  • Current ref 50 (Khousary..) needs a publisher
done all titles and publishers, the rest for tomorrow NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose As far as I can tell, the properties and applications sections are unneeded because they are about diamonds generally, not synthetic diamonds. Furthermore, basically all of the pictures appear to be copyright violations. The ones uploaded by the nominator here are web resolution though high quality without metadata, and the one from the Hershey book seems to be under copyright still based on my cursory research. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, maybe the first part isn't true. Copyvio problems remain. I deleted one blatant one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished with image and reference related issues.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image issues aren't resolved. I seriously am very skeptical that you personally took all the photos you uploaded. Why are they in varying web-resolution sizes without metadata? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you also haven't shown why the Hershey image is public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine for a moment that I am a professional scientist in this area. Would it explain your doubts ? Would it contradict anything ? I crop "empty" areas from virtually every my image - that is why pixels size is always different. A few crops might be exact for certain reasons (re-use as internal data). I never worried about metadata, but it seems the old free program I use chops off metadata. Some images (e.g. TEM of detonation diamond and perhaps scalpel) are taken from microscopes equipped with proprietary software. I can't speak for Hershey image as its not mine. Anything I can help with that or other images (no I don't have mine on this topic) ? Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Synthetic_diamond/archive1&oldid=1078807317"