Talk:Scanning transmission electron microscopy

Untitled
"Pronunciation is [stem] or [esti:i:em]." - I think this should be changed. This isn't even a grammatically correct sentence, nor is it something that should be it's own sentence, let alone the second sentence of the article. If you want to keep a pronunciation guide (which is actually a good idea), perhaps we should put it in parenthesis like: "Scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM, pronounced [stem] or [S-T-E-M]), [...]".

I also don't think [stem] and [esti:i:em] are the best representations of how you would pronounce STEM. I don't know how to write things in IPA but that would be the most appropriate way.

Any thoughts? Perhaps someone who knows how to write pronunciations in phonetic alphabet can have a crack at this?

Buckyball1 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I like seeing the revival of the term CTEM!!!! Someone criticized Prof. Earl Kirkland for the reintroduction of this term in his book. However, I do think it is a better terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.211.27 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the references are very controversial and should be taken down from this wikipage. Please read the two articles below.
 * http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2006/11/27/oak_ridge_researchers_admit_errors/
 * http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7116/full/444129a.html#B1
 * I have commented out the corresponding text. Its statement might remain true, i.e. that atomic resolution chemical analysis using the STEM was first reported in that 1993 paper, but there is more potential damage in citing that article than in omitting this minor fact. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will revert this as the story is long, and not proven. The first work matters. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The # James F. Hainfeld in the external links is self-promotion which should be removed.
 * Sure. Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The figure needs significant improving. We need a proper STEM lens train. Vegar Ottesen 11:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Citing my own paper for STEM-DPC experimental image
I made and added an image of an experimental ferromagnetic structure imaged using STEM-DPC in the Differential phase contrast section. This is from the same dataset (but replotted) as the one in this paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.201904738 (Figure 4a). I am the first author of the paper, and the one who acquired the data which is available under CC0 at https://zenodo.org/record/3466591.

Is it ok to add a citation in the figure caption, pointing to the paper? In the "citing yourself" policy, it says:

"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work."

I think that adding a citation in the figure caption would be ok, as it i) would be useful for people who are curious about the material or the image, ii) is not excessive or place undue emphasis on the work.

--Magnunor (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Subject of the article?
The article is titled Scanning transmission electron microscopy and so seems to be about a method or technique. The article starts A scanning transmission electron microscope... which is about a device. Either the lead should be altered to talk about the method, or the article moved so that the title describes a device. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 07:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The title is fine; the two terms are used interchangeably in the literature. There is already a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If the title is fine, then the lead needs some adjustment so that it starts with a simple overview of the technique. The article can then continue with details about the devices that use this technique — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you need to know the method and the massive literature before you start making suggestions. The article has many other more critical issues which I might get around to eventually. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I know enough, as a reader of articles, to make suggestions that might possibly improve the structure of articles. I also suspect that I am qualified enough to comment that editors should avoid being patronising — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Short description
Moved from my talk page — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edits to the short description of Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy are very, very wrong. If you want to make such edits you will need to first know a bit more about the topic. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:SDESC states that short descriptions should "be short – no longer than is needed to fulfill its functions effectively". Usually, short descriptions are less than 40 characters long; the current one is 104 characters long, far longer than what would be convenient and useful to read. In my opinion, GhostInTheMachine's short description doesn't seem to be technically wrong, although you could suggest a better version. Liu1126 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * His description is technical nonsense. I will ponder something shorter, but at the same time it needs to be accurate. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess if all else fails, we could still use "Microscopy technique", since short descriptions don't have to be definitions. Liu1126 (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That fails the "disambiguation in searches" requirement in WP:SDESC Ldm1954 (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "Scanning electron microscopy using thin samples and transmitted electrons". This differentiates it from SEM & TEM while still being shortish (73 with spaces). It must be differentiated from those. If you want to suggest others I will tell you if they are wrong. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could use "Microscopy using thin samples and transmitted electrons", getting rid of "Scanning electron"? After all, there's no point in repeating the title (WP:SDDUPLICATE). Liu1126 (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, what you suggested is TEM Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to ""Scanning microscopy using thin samples and transmitted electrons" which is shorter and adequately correct. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's good enough. The software truncates off the "electrons" bit in the search box, but there's enough info visible already. Liu1126 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. If you want a second opinion on short descriptions within physics/chemistry/materials science give me a ping. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Thanks! Liu1126 (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The Short description is still too long. Please read the details in WP:SDSHORT — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Needs work
The references used are not a fair representation of the field. In addition there is a whole section on QSTEM without a single source. This page needs a lot of work to bring it up to B status. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)