Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diamond/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:45, 25 August 2009.

Review commentary
I have little familiarity with the article or the subject matter, but on reading a critical review of the article in a soon to be published Signpost interview, I had to have a look at it. I must confess, then, that others more knowledgeable than me will need to make the necessary improvements. It was promoted in early 2005, and four years on I feel it has problems in meeting criteria 1c (some sections have no inline citations at all) and 2a (the lead needing a rewrite and probable expansion). Possibly a touch of 1a also; I can't speak for 1b or 4 really. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have 10+ years of research experience in this area and will quickly address any comment raised (I am going through the article, fixing whatever I notice). The article was in poor state a couple of months ago, but has been improved a lot recently by efforts of several editors. I wonder if the interview referred to the previous version of this article and would be glad to see the criticism. Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the interview (see the second question). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see displeasure with the article and no single comment. To me, saying "laughable" and give that article a start class merely reflects poor judgment of an editor rather than any realistic assessment of the quality of that article. Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Diamond is the second most stable form of carbon after graphite": grammatically, this means, assuming graphite is the most stable, that diamond is 3rd; I suspect what is actually meant is ", after"
 * I added the comma.
 * does relative stability have a scientific definition independent of temperature & pressure? Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know such definition. Pressure and temperature (P,T) are essential, because another phase can be more stable at other (P,T) conditions. Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the article's phrasing is unclear. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where and how ? Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By talking of stability without specifying the conditions. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says "ambient conditions" with a link to what that means. If this is missed in some part, it should be added (though there is a convention to assume ambient conditions if not specified). Materialscientist (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned in the quotation. Is it appropriate to assume the reader knows the convention? Peter jackson (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess so. From my personal experience, literally hundreds (maybe thousands; haven't edited that much) of WP articles on chemicals list some properties assuming that they are for room temperature and atmospheric pressure, unless mentioned otherwise. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might like to think about the distinction between articles with technical names like dihydro whatever & those with common English names like this. Who's the target audience? Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary
''Suggested FA criteria concern are citations (some are simply to a book without specifying a page), lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources and a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature ".  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed lacking page numbers. Checked reliability (replaced dubious web links with books). Lead seems Ok more or less. Further comments ? Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. Unsourced statements and purported statements of fact and sentences of analysis that should have cites. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider. The unreferenced small subsection you marked, "Identification", has been modified by a novice editor just hours before your assessment. I have added a book covering that subsection and do not believe you mean to delist an article based on that. Rergards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * There's a dead link that needs to be addressed.
 * In some places, particularly those identifying specific companies, the article verges on losing its impartiality. In a lot of places, some questionable adverbs are used. Take a close look at the DTC sections.
 * The article is a bit heavy on jargon ... if at all possible, I'd suggest translating some of the more technical terms into plain English. The lede is particularly intimidating; if possible, technical terms should be introduced later.
 * I've added a series of citation needed tags that should be addressed.
 * Citations 33 and 62 need a page numbers.
 * I'd like to see more information backing up DeBeers' dominance of the industry; the article doesn't give much coverage to anything other than DeBeers, but it can be justified if that dominance is made explicit.
 * In many paragraphs, there's only one citation, and I'm not sure if some of the citations can adequately cover everything in the paragraph ... spot checks turned up a few problems that have been identified with citation needed markers.
 * Overall, the prose is good, if a bit technical in spots. Citations should be the biggest priority, with working on weasel words a close second. Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all the raised issues on references and jargon in the lede. Some terms (kimberlite and lamproite) are hardly avoidable. You're right in that other companies are not covered simply because DeBeers is an absolute monopolist in this area, and I have added references on that. Could you please locate the dead link ? Materialscientist (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The dead link is the one published by the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. For your reference, the dead-link checker can be found at . That site also contains tools for checking citations and wikilinks (to determine if they're directed at disambiguation pages). JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed dead link. Thanks for the Checklinks tool! Materialscientist (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. My concerns about citations have been addressed, and an attempt has been made to remove some of the jargon and weasel words from the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments Keep A good article, but some issues:
 * "There are also commercial deposits being actively mined in the Northwest Territories of Canada and Brazil." No reference.
 * Added. These explorations are well known by now and are included in USGS reports. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Distribution - Launches straight into a slightly technical discussion of de Beers, but lacks an overview of distribution in general (De Beers are powerful, but they are not the whole story). At the same time, a significant part of the explanation of the supply chain / distribution appears under the heading "gemstones"
 * The partitioning of that section was indeed odd. I combined "gemstones" with "distribution" and also consolidated "production", which solved some problems. Added subsection on marketing. Also added some info on other diamond companies, though here De Beers still indirectly controls most of the world. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interestingly there isn't an actual section on the uses of diamond, this being confined to some of the text under the headings "gemstones" (which is to some degree self-evident!) and "industrial grade". At FA, and given there is not a stand-alone article on the uses of diamond, i'd want to see more detail, and references, on the industrial applications of diamonds.
 * I have added some text on applications into "industrial diamonds". Here it is important to note that the predominant application of natural diamonds are gemstones. Period. Diamonds which are too bad for gems are crushed for cutting and polishing applications. Anything else (electronics, heat sinks, etc.) is exotics. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "It was stated that annealing can convert typically brown synthetically made (CVD) diamonds into colorless diamonds, and that after having sent these diamonds for diamond jewelry identification, they were not identified as different from natural diamonds" This seems a strange sentence, perhaps tacked-on to the article. Stated by whom? And in any case, this should not be the opening sentence of a section on Identification. It should begin with general introduction to identification, before moving into specifics. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Fixed that section and deleted the whole weasel paragraph mentioned above (a minor news probably added because it made headlines on its day). Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but a clarification request: "...gem diamonds do not trade as a commodity: there is a substantial mark-up in the retail sale of diamonds". As a lay person, I have no idea what the attributes of a "commodity" are, so tihs sentence is a little opaque. Could it be changed to "...unlike other commodities, there is a substantial mark-up in the retail sale of diamonds." Would that be correct?
 * That is correct, and I put that into the article. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Alrosa has successfully appealed against a European court ruling,[49] but is not reported to have resumed sales to De Beers" - this makes no sense at all. Why would there be a court ruling? What has it to do with de Beers deliberately reducing its influence in the market? This passage generally is a little opaque. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I simplified this matter into saying that Alrosa (the largest Russian producer) have suspended their sales (i.e. they are out of any diamond sales and have not resumed them yet), cutting out confusing court case. Materialscientist (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Stricken the "delist", above. Excellent work and improvements to the article. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved significantly, but I think there are still some referencing and stylistic issues that need to be addressed. Example: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/International_Diamond_Council – this is a mirror of the English Wikipedia article on the International Diamond Council, so umm, definitely not a reliable source. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I have voted 'keep' above, but now I re-read it, I have two more queries, on which I would welcome other editor views.

1) Should not "Production" (including the controversial sources subsection) come before uses, rather than after? That would seem a more logical sequence.
 * Yes, this is how we usually lay out elements articles. Moved. This also puts industrial diamonds next to the synthetic diamonds (next section). Materialscientist (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

2) There appears to be no section on the cutting of the gems. There is a long section on this within Diamond (gemstone), not to mention a further sub-articles Diamond cut and Diamond cutting. However, I think this top-level article should have a summary section with 'main article' links. If it doesn't have such a section, I would query whether it meets the comprehensiveness criteria for FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote a subsection on that, but without too much detail as the article is already quite large, and this topic is vast.Materialscientist (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, my keep stands, I'm happy with that, and made some other tweaks myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The "Industrial diamonds and their use" section should be renamed, if possible, to avoid repeating the article name. Also, the image on the left of that section needs to be moved or deleted. We can't have images directly under third-level headings per WP:ACCESS. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the new images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a re-ordering of sections and a rearrangement of the heading heirarchy. Heading referred to by Dabomb has been altered. I have done alt texts for four new images, but the complicated allotrope image defeated me. Anyone else want to have a go? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Images are rearranged per MoS and alt texts added for all remaining images. Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking good. I've asked Eubulides to put in an alt text parameter for Infobox mineral so that someone can put in alt text for the lead image. Almost there... Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there are a few disambiugation links. Two are from the hatnote, but the rest need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added an  parameter to Infobox mineral, so that can go in now. In reviewing the Altviewer output, alt text is missing for File:HPHTdiamonds2.JPG. "A world map with gray continents on white background. Yellow, green and red dots are dispersed around the continents" should be replaced by the gist of the image rather than unimportant details about colors, e.g., something like "Russia produces the most diamonds. South Africa and neighboring countries together produce somewhat more than Russia does. Other, smaller producers are Australia, Canada, China, the south coast of west Africa, and Guyana." (unless this repeats the nearby text, in case one can simply say something like "Map of producers; see adjacent text."). For the first two alt texts, which are pretty long, I suggest rewording for brevity. You can omit visual details such as positioning that are not that relevant to the gist. E.g., you might try rewording "This picture consists of four panels. The top left one shows" to "Four panels. First,". "The hole is filled with orange-red substance" needs a period after it. Eubulides (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabs fixed (except for the diamond symbol which I feel should be linked to the diambig page). File:HPHTdiamonds2.JPG did have alt text, but it was Alt= instead of alt=. If this is editors problem, we should keep capitalization in mind, if not, maybe script needs a tweak. Other alt texts changed as suggested. It takes practice to learn writing them, and the patient help of Eubulides is very much appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the alt text is looking good now. I tweaked the alt text a bit, mostly by adding a description of the schematic diagram. Eubulides (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.mindat.org/min-1282.html
 * http://webmineral.com/data/Diamond.shtml
 * They are the most comprehensive (web) databases on minerals. We use their data in WP mineral articles, because they are well cited and detailed. There has been no suspicion so far (contrary to other databases like webelements.com). You can consult Vsmith, he is a professional geologist and uses them on WP for years. What I also find good is that they are two "monopolists" - their competition improves quality ;-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In "Ball was a Geologist in British service.", why is "Geologist" capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a misprint. Corrected. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 22 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.