Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Synthetic diamond/archive2


 * 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 promoted by Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009.

Synthetic diamond

 * Nominator(s): Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the second FA nomination of Synthetic diamond. Previous attempt in May-June this year ended by time-out, without a clear conclusion. After that I and a previous referee Cryptic C62 have continued the review and here is the result for your consideration. Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is there, but it needs some work, as it contains many phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the images, and these phrases need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT . These phrases include "diamonds" ("gems" would be better), "grown by the high-pressure high-temperature technique", "3-m tall belt press produced in the 1980s by the Kobe Steel Group", "made of single crystal of HPHT diamond", "metal" (in "metal holder"), "belt press", "cell", "horizontal belt", "are compressed by", "serves as the pressure transmitting medium", "transmission electron", "diamond" (in "diamond particles"), "produced by detonating carbon-containing explosives", "angle grinder blade", "cut from a diamond grown by chemical vapor deposition". Also, the text that's in an image should generally be copied into the alt text if it's at all important; this wasn't done for "Dies" and "Rubber diaphragm". Also, "2–3 mm" should use an endash, not a hyphen, as per WP:ENDASH . Eubulides (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be patient as this is my first ever experience with alt texts. I tried to address all those issues. Gems means faceted diamond and thus may not be used at will (only in the last image). I had added "compressed" because that describes the two arrows in image File:Hydrostatic Synthesis.png. Please suggest a possible alternative if this is incorrect. Materialscientist (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was fast! Much better, thanks. One last minor thing that I forgot in my previous comment (sorry): please omit intro phrases like "An image", "A photograph of", "A drawing of", as they are not that useful in this context (see WP:ALT , example #2). Eubulides (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted some of that, but left a couple because I thought in a science article it is important to distinguish a schematic drawing and a photograph (they present design rather differently in terms of the components). Materialscientist (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. Thanks again for the quick work. Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. After our extensive work on the prose, I am happy with this article. Though there may still exist minor problems with the prose, at this point I am too familiar with the text to be able to see them myself. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - After quite a lot of work, I have been able to fix the images, I hope. NW ( Talk ) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a minor note: File:Hydrostatic Synthesis.png - It would be appreciated if you could add categories to this, as you are a specialist in this field, I believe. NW ( Talk ) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have added categories to that image. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly well-written; good job. There are still things to fix up throughout; here are random examples from the top.
 * I'd have used "none" as singular, and omitted "of them": "but none of them have been confirmed to have produced diamonds" -> "but none has been confirmed to have produced diamonds".
 * No "the"? "Those two processes still dominate production of synthetic diamond."—My rule of thumb is "where there's an of to the right, put a the to the left".
 * "A fourth diamond synthesis variety"—you're trying hard not to repeat "method" or "process"; but when it's basically a list, it can sometimes be easier for the reader. "synthesis variety" is a bit hard. Possibly: "A fourth method, of treating graphite with high-power ultrasonic [blah],..."
 * "in particular" could possibly be removed for easier reading (after "natural diamond;").
 * Consider relocating "are being developed" back to sit after "devices".
 * So electric furnaces existed in 1879?
 * Any reason to use "utilized", when a plain word like "used" is available. I know engineers love the z word; never worked out why. And perhaps "in which graphite was dissolved"?
 * "he spent 30 years (1882–1922) and a considerable part of his fortune to reproduce the experiments of Moissan and Hannay but also adapted processes of his own. "—I've run outa fingers to count on. Comma needed before "but" (I'm searching for the constract, though, and the addition—was he successful or unsuccessful in the reproduction?). Tony   (talk)  11:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) PS Can you remove the residual date-autoformatting?
 * I have addressed all style comments as suggested. The text was incorrect regarding electric furnace and is fixed (Hannay used flame heating in 1879). Scientific literature does endorse "utilized", that is why the term was used in the previous text (changed now). Please clarify your PS, if you mean accessdate ("retrieved on"), it might be obligatory for web-links. Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He was referring to the unnecessary date links, which shouldn't be linked per MOS. I have since fixed them. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I care nought that "scientific literature endorses" a particularly ugly word, when a plain one a third as long is available and means the same thing. Scientific literature, whatever or whoever that is, also endorses the total use of the passive voice. We know better here. I suggest that "used" be substituted. Tony  (talk)  06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I agree and did substitute "utilized" all through, and just added a note explaining why you might encounter "utilized" elsewhere. Materialscientist (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Materialscientist (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so negative. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;I believe this article now meets the FA criteria. Comment&mdash;I started reviewing this but, unfortunately, I immediately began struggling with the lead section. I just think it could be better written.
 * The parenthetical text in the first sentence breaks the flow, and the first paragraph is too short.
 * How recent is "recently"? This is too vague.
 * The first sentence of the third paragraph doesn't seem to tell me anything: the synthetics can be better or they can not. Well yes.
 * Is the 'already' really necessary in 'are already used'?
 * There are other sentences in there that, to me, could read smoother: e.g. "Its applications as a material of active electronic devices are being developed", "Numerous individual attempts to grow synthetic diamond were documented".
 * There is also some ambiguity: e.g. "ultraviolet (UV) light or high-energy particles, made of synthetic diamond".
 * On the contrary, your comments are rather positive as they helped to notice and rewrite the flaws of the lead, which is improved now as suggested. The first sentence of the third paragraph might seem superfluous in any other article, but please consider that diamond articles have always been a target for rewriting attempts questioning its superior properties (esp. hardness). While defending against those attempts, it was necessary to accentuate that there are different types of one material diamond which may have very different properties (e.g., few people seem to understand that the names "ultrahard fullerite", "aggregated diamond nanorods" etc, merely refer to a nanocrystaline, synthetic form of diamond rather than new materials). Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Much improved. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article looks good for the most part. However, I think there are a few more issues that need to be addressed before it satisfies the FA criteria:
 * There are some sections that are too short. I think these need to be consolidated or expanded. See Layout.
 * Expanded some subsections (will add more later). Note that some are of introductory nature. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Chemical vapor deposition" appears insufficiently cited. The final sentence of the "Ultrasound cavitation" is uncited. The first paragraph of the "Properties" section is uncited.
 * Added refs. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The format of the "production injunction against Iljin Diamond" reference is inconsistent with the others. For example, I can't tell if the two numbers are pages or volumes.
 * It is a special type of a reference (US court case). Added books where the case is cited and described. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to support. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment There's still one disambiguation link. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should have appeared during the review. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm willing to say support on the source issues with the corrections and from what I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Source analysis - but first, "synthetic diamond is" sounds off. Chose either "a synthetic diamond is" or "synthetic diamonds are". Sources are hard to check as most are offline.
 * 1. This source (p. 123) is being used for this phrase: "In 1926, Dr. Willard Hershey of McPherson College replicated Moissan's and Ruff's experiments, producing a synthetic diamond; that specimen is on display at the McPherson Museum in Kansas". However, 123 (according to numbering at the bottom) does not mention Hershey, Moison, Ruff, or anyone else. Moisson is first mentioned on page 127. Hershey is shown in a picture, but I could not find any mention of him except as perhaps as an anonymous author mentioned in the 130s with the initials C. H. D.
 * Thank you, all your comments made me re-check and re-think the referencing. Here, I added new references to avoid confusion. The source is correct, but strangely, while printing two (unique) named photos of Hershey, that chapter calls him only by his (McPherson) location rather than name. Page numbers adjusted - previous number pointed to the chapter start. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. "no other experimenter was able to reproduce their synthesis" I think it is more proper to say that "other experimenters were unable to reproduce their synthesis".
 * Corrected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Wiki - "His breakthrough was using a "belt" press, which was capable of producing pressures above 18 GPa and temperatures above 2400 °C."
 * 3. Source - "subject to pressures of 100000 atmos at temperatures in excess of 2000°C"
 * Corrected to comply with that reference. Hall did reach 18 GPa and 2400 °C, but only later. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. In the source for number 3, I could not find use of "cobalt", "iron" or "solvent-catalyst" in the document.
 * The reason is simple - that reference is a detailed description of the press, nothing about diamond synthesis. I added two his Nature papers on diamond synthesis using that press. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. This source is used for this quote - "The second type of press design is the cubic press. A cubic press has six anvils which provide pressure simultaneously onto all faces of a cube-shaped volume. The first multi-anvil press design was actually a tetrahedral press, using only four anvils to converge upon a tetrahedron-shaped volume." I could not find use of the word "cubic press" or "six". There was something called the "Bidgman anvil apparatus" and the "tetrahedral anvil".
 * I have to disagree, the reference described tetrahedral press and is placed exactly in the sentence on tetrahedral press. Other presses are covered in the book mentioned in the end of the paragraph. I have split up that book reference to avoid confusion. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. This source is used to support this statement: "Synthetic diamond is the hardest material known". I could not find mention of "synthetic diamond" within the text.
 * Same situation - the mentioned reference honestly supports its claim on Mohs hardness. I re-cited the reference on "hardest material known" to fix that. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * - Many of the other sources I could check checked out. Other things: "During the 1980s a new competitor", there needs to be a comma after "1980s". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your first note, "synthetic diamond" is a material found in various forms and used in various applications. "A synthetic diamond" or "synthetic diamonds" are gemstones. This article is about the material, not just synthetic gemstones. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly, it is perfectly legitimate (and sometimes necessary) to use both phrases. The coating on a cutting tool or the substrate on which electronic devices are formed is the material diamond.  The presents you give to your girlfriend are the gem diamonds.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support this excellent article for promotion, with the following comments,
 * Lede para 2: "In the 1940-1950s" construction does not seem right to me. "In the 1940s and 1950s" or "starting in the 1940s through the 1950s" would be better.
 * "explosion of carbon-containing explosives" the repetion is poor style. Perhaps "detonation of carbon-containing explosives"?
 * "...has no commercial use yet." That phrase sounds incomplete.  "...has no commercial use as yet." would be better or even better "...but as yet there is no commercial application."
 * Lede para 4: "...can be cut into gems of various colors:" I assume that this does not mean that the color is determined by the way the jeweller cuts the stone (or does it?) but that's how it reads. A construction like "...can be cut into gems and various colors can be produced:" would make it clear.
 * History, para 2:  "Ruff...reproduced diamonds" should be "Ruff...produced diamonds"
 * GE diamond project: para 2: "...squeezed out of the container through a gasket". Ref 9 (Barnard) says the gasket does not rupture or break. How are those two statements reconciled?
 * Misprint. Changed "through" to "into", as in the original source. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tracy Hall's award is described by both your references as an ACS Gold Medal. However, I am a little perturbed that the ACS  does not itself describe it so.  Assuming that is the right award, I think it would be wise to link that ACS page in the refs, after all, it is the authoritative source for who has awards from the ACS.
 * I was perplexed by that earlier and thought that the form of the ACS award had changed (hard to imagine they kept $5,000 award for 40 years). I couldn't find references supporting my idea and thus changed the statement and reference as suggested.Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 17 (Hannas 2003) is cited as page 76, but the material referenced is mostly on page 77 so should really be 76-77.
 * para 3: The terms "belt press" and "solvent-catalyst" are not very clearly explained.  Although belt press is explained later there is no indication to the reader that this material is coming ("see below" or see "High pressure, high temperture" below).
 * Later developments, para 3: "(1 carat(200mg))". Brackets within brackets, good in maths article, bad in English.  Can we have that as (1 carat, or 200mg) or just wikilink carat to carat (mass), or both.
 * Argh .. killed the misbehaving conversion template there. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 9 is cited for this para giving page numbers 3-9, 31-50 which is quite a wide range. I could not locate the cited material in pp.3-9 and am unable to read 31-50.  This ref is used in nine places; it should be broken up with more specific page numbers.
 * I tried to avoid using multiple links to one source, but gave it up now and split up some references as suggested. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultrasound cavitation: Micron should be wikilinked to micrometre, not everyone is familiar with this term.
 * "...are not optimized yet". Another yet at the end of a clause, better "...are not yet optimized."
 * Properties:crystallinity: A few words on the bulk properties of polycrystalline diamond would be useful.  Is it still transparent for instance, can you tell by looking at it that it is polycrystalline?
 * Hardness: requires a wikilink to explain that notation. I think the right article is Miller index but the explanation of the angle bracket notation has been deleted in this edit, possibly accidently.  I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to fix this confidently but either a wikilink or an explanation is needed.
 * Linked and fixed that bit in the Miller index article. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thermal conductivity, para 2: "...produces a measurable temperature drop." I could not verify this fact in the ref (Donoghue), the page cited does not discuss the temperature probe. Although it is discussed on other pages, the description of the device as using two thermistors is not found in that ref at all.
 * Electronics, para 2: "...for covalently linking DNA to the surface of polycrystalline diamond..."  I am a bit in the dark what the application is here, i.e. why do you want to link DNA to polycrystalline diamond?  It is also not clear why this is under the electronics heading.  Also the doi for the reference (Nebel) is returning an error.
 * Citation bot had lumped doi with journal name, fixed that. Attaching DNA to diamond turns it into electronic detector of bio-molecules through at least two mechanisms: (i) when initial DNA attaches to diamond, it changes its surface conductivity, which is being measured in situ; in case of reversible attachment/detachment we get a DNA sensor. (ii) if the attachment is relatively stable in that DNA medium, then the thus modified diamond surface can be further used for detecting other biomolecules. They will selectively interact with the initial DNA, detaching it or adhering to it, which is again detected through variation of diamond conductivity. All this is rather complex to me too, and is further complicated by that it apparently doesn't work in dark, but only with illumination. Thus I only added one clarifying sentence upon this comment. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * para 3: "While no diamond transistors have yet been successfully integrated into commercial electronics, they are promising..." this leaves it open in the readers mind whether or not diamond transistors have actually been made at all, which of course they have.
 * Gemstones: The claim regarding memorial diamonds needs a citation:  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a non-commercial ref for that (most will try to cremate you by all means :). All other style and reference comments were fixed as suggested. I really appreciate all these comments, and the work of the referees not only in pointing the problems, but especially in suggesting solutions, and hope this could be a good example for FA reviews. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.