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)

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 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)

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. 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)