Talk:Crystallographic defects in diamond/GA1

OK. Here's the more detailed critique:


 * The intro uses words like "defect" and "diamond" repetitively. I know there may be technical constraints here, but surely a way can be found to write around this, because it tends to bore a reader.




 * We see a few words to avoid: "however", "maybe", "It should be noted", "perhaps". They might work in a scientific paper but this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedic article. If they're what the sources say, this needs to be made clearer in the text.


 * ✅ Some howevers are left - intrinsic "drawback" of a scientific style


 * When I see a sentence begin "Elements manganese and tungsten", I know this is written by someone for whom English is not their first language.




 * Uncited sentences, tagged in the source text: "but it has not been spectroscopically identified in diamond yet", "Absorption of light and other material properties of diamond are highly dependent upon nitrogen content and aggregation state. Although all aggregate configurations cause absorption in the infrared, diamonds containing aggregated nitrogen are usually colorless, i.e. have little absorption in the visible spectrum." (This whole paragraph needs to be cited).




 * "labeling of diamond defects is historical and not systematic". This is important information for the next part of the article, and should be introduced first, before it starts to go through all this.




 * "There is a general consensus that B center (sometimes called B1) consists of a carbon vacancy surrounded by four nitrogen atoms substituting for carbon atoms." Does someone say there's a general consensus? If so, cite it; if not, that's possibly OR-ish, at least stated that way.




 * "Note that many optical peaks in diamond accidentally have similar spectral positions, which causes much confusion among gemologists. The silent agreement in scientific literature is to use for defect identification the whole spectrum rather than one peak, and to consider the history of the growth and processing of individual diamond." Same problem, but worse as it's sort of difficult to cite a "silent agreement". Cite it or rephrase.




 * I should say, otherwise, that this section of the article is the clearest.




 * "This fact is by all means unusual considering the large difference in size between carbon and transition metal atoms and the superior rigidity of the diamond lattice." You don't say? So who does? If a sentence in an article is making something of an extraordinary claim like this, it needs proof.


 * ✅ You see, many of the above points (especially this one) are so obvious for a specialist - large atoms do not enter rigid lattices, any observation otherwise is remarkable.


 * "Isolated nickel-related defects are routinely observed not only in synthetic, but also in natural diamonds" This single-sentence graf should be integrated into another nearby one.




 * "the concentrations of isolated Co in diamond are much smaller than those of Ni" Is there some reason we have to use the periodic table abbreviations here when we've been using cobalt and nickel otherwise?




 * "Similar to nickel, isolated silicon is also detected not only in synthetic, but also in natural diamonds." Another isolated sentence looking for a paragraph to be part of.




 * Is "knocking off" the common scientific term for this process? It sounds a little too colloquial to me.


 * ✅ Tried to use common language .. writing WP is like walking under fire, step left or step right and you get shot :)


 * Using the same picture twice in an article looks lazy. The text talks about photoluminescing diamonds ... maybe we could see a picture of that happening? It sounds cool.


 * Enjoy. Duplicating there has a purpose: 1st occurrence is just to a poster attract to the article, 2nd is a specific demonstration of irradiation effect. No big deal though. Feel free to delete.


 * "In an unpublished study, diamonds rich in substitutional Ni were electron irradiated and annealed, with following careful optical measurements performed after each annealing step, but no evidence for creation or enhancement of Ni-vacancy centers was obtained." Well, besides the return of Co and Ni, we've got an unpublished study cited without a footnote. Did a source cite it? Then cite that source! Otherwise, an unpublished study is not a reliable source.



Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)