Talk:Synthetic diamond/FA1

FA Review

Nominator(s): Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article NIMSoffice (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Oppose for now from Cryptic C62 · Talk: "is diamond produced in a technological process, as opposed to natural diamond, which is produced by geological processes." First instance of "process" uses the preposition "in". Second instance uses "by". These should be consistent; my !vote is for "by". "Produced by a man/woman IN technological process" and "produced BY geological process" might not need unification. 3rd opinion needed. If unify, my vote is for "in". "Synthetic diamonds should not be confused with" Wikipedia is WP:NOT a diamond buyer's guide. This sentence should be reworded to avoid the abuse of the phrase "should not be confused with". I think the inclusion of enhanced diamonds is unnecessary at this point. I suggest that the section be reworded to emphasize the difference between synthetic diamond and diamond simulants. done Actually, I have deleted this part before, but some copyeditor restored it. Throughout the article (including the lead), you switch between "synthetic diamond is" and "synthetic diamonds are", where the singular is used to describe the material and the plural is used to describe the gemstones. I realize that these are different, but in situations where you have a choice between the two (such as the very first sentence), consistency would be helpful for the readers. Although the plural seems more intuitive to me, I suppose it makes more sense to use the singular, as this makes it clear that the article is not limited to jewelry, but to the various applications of this material. done Striking for now. I'll let you know if I catch any other instances. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC) The second paragraph of the lead begins with "Synthetic diamond is made using two major processes: chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) synthesis." There are several instances in this paragraph in which there are apparently comparisons being made between the two processes without making it clear which ones you are talking about: "some synthetic diamonds" and "Certain synthetic diamonds". What is the point of introducing the two processes if they aren't included in the discussion? Conversely, what is the point of discussing the processes if it isn't made clear which one(s) you're discussing? done Erm, not really. Simply cutting out material and adding "(either HPHT or CVD)" doesn't quite cut it. I'm particularly concerned with the following statement: "Its properties depend on the details of the manufacturing processes, and can be inferior, similar or superior to those of natural diamond." I assume that the broad spectrum of possibilities is due primarily to the variety of ways in which synthetic diamond is produced. If this is the case, and if you are keen on keeping this somewhat useless sentence, you should elaborate upon which properties are better/worse for each process. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Notes: mentioning those two major production processes is essential for the lead. However, the spectrum of possibilities does not hinge on the process (i.e. imagine one process does not exist - most applications would remain). Properties do depend on the process. The questioned sentence "Its properties depend .." is for introduction only. It is detailed by the next sentence. Comparing all properties of CVD and HPHT diamond is beyond the scope of the lead and the article. Please reconsider or explain what is needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Perhaps I am being mislead by the fact that you've essentially lumped a summary of Manufacturing technologies with Properties. I suggest splitting this paragraph of the lead into multiple paragraphs. This would also allow you to expand the manufacturing technologies bit to include explosive detonation and ultrasound cavitation. I've reformulated the lead as requested. Please check. If style comments, please propose a sentence or rewrite yourself.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I tend not to rewrite material unless I am certain that I fully understand it and that I won't change its meaning by rewriting it. When I am not certain, but have a good idea, I'll propose a replacement sentence. It is when I really don't understand the purpose of a sentence at all that I do neither. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) "Their advantages for electronic applications have been demonstrated." If I were a Spartan, and my wife begat this sentence, I would have left it on the hillside, as it appears to be entirely useless. "have been demonstrated" is ambiguous and WP:WEASELY. "Their advantages" is vague. That this sentence appears after the bit about heat sinks is also odd, as heat sinks are often used in electronics. done The replacement sentence is still (perhaps even more) awkward, and you response to my next point says that electronic applications don't exist yet. This has not been made clear in either version of the sentence. Also, heat sinks are used in electronics, aren't they? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, heat sinks are used in electronics, but not only. I feel this comments hinges on writing style and now tried to carefully separate "passive" and "active" electronic applications. NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) "Detectors of UV light or high-energy particles, made of synthetic diamond, are being applied at high-energy research facilities and are already available commercially." The use of "already" implies that the reader should, at this point in the article, be somewhat familiar with the timeline of synthetic diamond UV detectors, which won't be true for the vast majority of readers. "Already" leaned on the previous sentence, saying that electronic applications are not here yet, but detectors are already available. No slide to knowledge of detectors. See my response above; it is relevant to this issue as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) see response above and in the text.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Perhaps instead of just saying "electronic applications", you should actually list some potential applications. This would be more useful for the reader and might make this section flow better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "Because of a unique combination of thermal and chemical stability, low thermal expansion and high optical transparency in the wide spectral range, synthetic diamond is becoming the most popular material for optical windows in high-power CO2 lasers and gyrotrons." Why "the" wide spectral range? Shouldn't it be "a" wide spectral range? Also, avoid the use of the indirect "a" for "unique combination", as it leaves some ambiguity as to whether the unique combination belongs to synthetic diamond or to optical windows. done "either clear white or colored yellow, brown, blue or even green or orange" This is a very poorly constructed list: It uses "either" despite there being more than two items in the list. It uses "or" three times. "Or even" is unnecessary unless you go on to explain why green and orange are unusual colors. done Not yet. Please reread the last sentence of my comment. It still applies to this version. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "This creates major concerns in the diamond trading business" What creates major concerns? The wide variety of colors? Or the mere fact that synthetic diamond can be cut into gems? Also, "creates" implies that these synthetic gemstones are a source of perpetual consternation for diamond traders, but the rest of the paragraph implies that these concerns have been taken care of by the "special" spectroscopic techniques. done "Techniques" were introduced to fight the problem; they did not take care of it. The problems is serious and remains. A few little things: I'm fairly certain that "et al" is supposed to be italicized: et al. Non-breaking spaces should be used between numbers and abbreviated units; see WP:NBSP. All ranges of numbers should use endashes, not hyphens; see WP:DASH. I've corrected a few instances of each of these problems in this diff. done Looks good for now, I'll keep my eye out for others. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) WP:LEAD states that the lead must summarize all of the main sections of the article. Unless I am misreading, I don't see anything in the lead which pertains to the History section. done.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but none of them could be confirmed." If the attempts have been documented, why cant they be confirmed? Also, "could be confirmed" implies that the person who did the research (you) could not find the sources, which doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist. I can't find a better word for "confirmed". "Reproduced" would mean diamond had been grown, which is not. Many claimants later retracted their own claims (e.g. ref. [9], C.H. Desch (1928)). Further, there was a series of investigations into success of those early attempts, analyzing the conditions and products. Trying to be as neutral as possible, they carefully selected respected and neutral scientists (talked to one of them). No single report could confirm the diamonds were produced (e.g. ref. [5] K. Lonsdale (1962).NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see. I interpreted "none of them could be confirmed" to mean "none of the attempts could be confirmed by secondary sources", but what you meant was "non of them could be confirmed to have been successful." Suggestion to reduce ambiguity: "Numerous individual attempts are documented to grow synthetic diamond, dating between 1879 and 1928, but it is unclear if any of these attempts were successful." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose because every attempt was investigated later (unique history, demonstrating the power of diamond business world) and was found unsuccessful. I slightly rewrote. Please have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (former NIMSoffice - changed name) Valid. I also slightly rewrote for grammar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) "The first reproducible synthesis, by the HPHT and possibly CVD methods, was reported around 1953." The "possibly CVD methods" bit tells me that there may have been some discrepancy between the sources. Readers who are less familiar with research might misinterpret this. In any case, this piece of information isn't really critical to the lead. Suggested rewrite: "The first reproducible diamond synthesis was reported around 1953." Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "In this method" Which method? It would be helpful to include the name of the process. Done.NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "The fourth diamond synthesis varity" Uh... what? Typo. Should be variety. Has no name yet. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Caption:"Synthetic diamonds of various colors grown by the high-pressure high-temperature technique, the diamond size is ~2 mm" Improper comma use. Either incorporate the diamond size into the sentence or split into two sentences. Also, what dimension does "diamond size" refer to? Height? Radius? Tried to fix, meaning the longest measure of the largest diamond in the picture. Please reformulate if needed. NIMSoffice (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Hrm. On second thought, it might be better to simply include a scale in the image itself. Done.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Yikes, that's a pretty pathetic scale bar. The image should be able to exist on its own without requiring a caption to explain the purpose of the white smudge. I'd be happy to try to try making a scale bar myself in MS Paint, but you've brightened the original image. I'd like to preserve that change, so if you upload a brightened non-smudgebar version, I'll make a scale bar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Done.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Moving on to the History section: "many attempts were made to alter the cheaper forms of carbon" It's not entirely clear what the goal here is. What exactly does "alter" mean? Were people trying to make diamond exclusively, or were they trying to replicate the various allotropes of carbon? Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "Ruff claimed in 1917" The first instance of a person's name should include that person's first name(s). The person's profession is also helpful. Name added. A previous sentence said that Ruff was a scientist, not much more is known. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "were the result of seeding by well-intentioned co-workers" What is "seeding"? "well-intentioned" seems somewhat speculative and fanciful. Even without that bit, this seems to be an unusually specific conclusion. Surely the sources must present some other ideas, or at least a more general one. Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I'm glad that the sentence is clearer (although somewhat informal), but it is still fundamentally flawed. I read through Ref 6 (Lonsdale 1962), and there is no mention of the possibility of seeding by frustrated technicians, and with good reason: This is too specific a conclusion to make based on such old and unclear information. I don't have access to Ref 7 (O'Donoghue 2006), but I suspect that if it does indeed mention this idea, it treats it as just one possibility. Assuming this is the case, I suggest either rewording the sentence to make it clearer to the reader that it is speculative, or just deleting it entirely so as not to mislead the reader. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Ref 5 (Lonsdale 1962) is just a list of citations. Perhaps I can't see the whole article because I don't have access to the subscription-only database. Assuming that it is indeed just a list, I don't quite see the point of including it. Seeing only reference list universally means you don't have access to full text; the latter is available at http://67.50.46.175/paperspdf/lons-k1962.pdf (no, not my server, and I don't know how comes its free there. By far not the first case though). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "The most definitive duplication attempts were performed by Sir Charles Algernon Parsons" Suggest "replication" instead of "duplication". Also, approximately when did his work begin? Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "He devoted 30 years and a considerable part of his fortune" Not very neutral language. Suggest swapping out "devoted" with "spent". Suggest including some sort of numerical estimate like "over $300,000" instead of "a considerable part of his fortune." Swapped. No info on money spent. Parsons was a Knight and had a fortune from his steam turbine invention; might well be he never disclosed the amount (at least, he did not have to).Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "as well as those of Hannay" Who? Also, the note after this sentence, Ref 7 (Hannay 1879) is authored by Hannay. It seems to me that instead of using the ref to verify the statement, you are using it as an example of Hannay's work. While both uses of the citation system are acceptable, they should not be mixed. Separate lists should be used: one for "further information"-type notes, one for references. I'm glad to fix, but don't see a problem: the sentence in passing mentions another diamond synthesis attempt (by Hannay) and the reference supports the fact of that experiment (not the fact of its reproduction). Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) That's not how I interpret it, and I seriously doubt any reader will see it that way either. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Hannay moved up with his ref, which is actually more fair for history and text, and should solve the problem.Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "However in 1928 he authorized C.H. Desch" Who is C.H. Desch? A student of his? A journal editor? Dr. Desch. Scientist. No further information. Not assistant or student of Parsons. Unusual - yes, but so was the whole story. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "It was believed that on one occasion a diamond was produced, but since experiments could not be reproduced such claims could not be maintained" Several problems. "It was believed" is a weasel phrase. That section should be more definitive: Was anything published about this supposed diamond? Also, does "experiments could not be reproduced" mean that the experiments were attempted again but were unsuccessful? Or does it mean that, because of the inherent complexity of the apparatus, it was impossible to reproduce the experiment at all? Does "such claims could not be maintained" mean that the authors of the claim later retracted it? Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Better, but it still includes the weasel phrase. I suggest trying to incorporate "the team reported" or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press" What is meant by "elegant"? Large? Energy efficient? Deleted (technical weasel). Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C" It is unclear to which apparatus what you are comparing the belt press. The tungsten carbide anvils? The 1941 experiment? Explained. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "His breakthrough was using an elegant "belt" press apparatus which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C, using a pyrophyllite container, and having the graphite dissolved within molten nickel, cobalt or iron, a "solvent-catalyst"." Once the specific issues are resolved, this entire sentence needs to be rewritten. It is unclear if the belt press, pyrophillite container, and dissolved graphite clauses are all specific components of the breakthrough or if they relate more directly to each other. Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Better, but still a bit awkward: "which raised the achievable pressure from 6 to 18 GPa and the temperature above 2400 °C as compared to hydraulic presses." It's clear that the pressure is being compared to the hydraulic presses, but it's unclear what the deal is with the temperature. It might be clearer to just drop the comparison altogether and give straight numbers: "which was capable of producing pressures above 18 GPa and temperatures above 2400 C." Indeed. Thanks. Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "clearly unsuitable for jewelry" Another weasel word. Why "clearly"? Too big? Too small? Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "Hall was able to have co-workers replicate his work" This is oddly worded. Why not just "Hall's co-workers were able to replicate his work" ? Reformulated. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "He was the first person to grow a synthetic diamond according to a reproducible, verifiable and witnessed process and received a gold medal of the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work" Incorrect usage of "according to". How about "using"? Suggest changing "witnessed" to "well-documented". This is a long unbroken sentence. I suggest splitting it or adding some punctuation. Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "and three years later developed a completely independent apparatus for the synthesis of diamond (the tetrahedral press with four anvils)" Not sure what you mean by "completely independent". Perhaps "entirely new" ? The explanation should not be preceded by "the", nor should it be in parentheses. These imply that the reader should already be familiar with the device. Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Picture: The image of the belt press is clearly very modern. This may be misleading to the readers since the paragraphs next to it deal with the 40s and 50s. I suggest expanding the caption to more clearly indicate the era in which the photograph was taken. Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "Hall received a gold medal from the American Chemical Society in 1972 for his work." Did Hall really receive a medal in 1972 for his work from 1954? Or was this sentence supposed to be at the end of the paragraph? In either case, it should probably be verified by another ref, one specific to the ACS. Indeed, the award did not specify which diamond work (I assumed 1954, BTW 18 yrs delay was usual in mat. science :). Fixed, with references.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "Another successful diamond synthesis was produced" Odd wording. Should probably be either "Another synthetic diamond was successfully produced" or "Another successful diamond synthesis was achieved." Done.Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC) "Sweden's major electrical manufacturing company" This would probably going to be a source of contention if any of ASEA's competitors read this article. I would suggest rewriting to a somewhat weaker statement: "one of Sweden's major electrical manufacturing companies." or some such. Done.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "as part of a top-secret diamond-making project" The use of "top-secret" seems a bit childish. Is this really how the source described the project? No kidding. Nothing was known about Swedish project until 80s. (I see relation between diamond business and diamond synthesis as a modern version of the medieval church-to-astronomy history :) Even now, few sources document details of that project (names, dates, publication titles, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Oh, I believe that it was a very secretive project. I'm just asking if the sources actually used the phrase "top-secret". If not (and perhaps even if they did), we could probably come up with a more encyclopedic alternative, such as "highly secretive" or "classified" or "clandestine". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) No, I actually copy-pasted the term from the reference book. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Meh, no worries then. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "Baltzar von Platen (1898–1984) and Anders Kämpe (1928–1984)" Not sure why their lifespans are included, especially since none of the other scientists mentioned in this article are given this treatment. Indeed, the fact that they died in the same year may be confusing for some readers, as it implies that the design was completed in 1984 and that they had been working on it for a long time. Years deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "A few small crystals were produced, but not of gem quality or size." Crystals of diamond? Yes. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "a new competitor emerged in Korea named Iljin Diamond" When I first read this, I thought Iljin Diamond was someone's name. I was like "wow, that's convenient. He's working on synthetic diamond and his last name is Diamond?" Suggest rewording to make it clearer that that is the name of a company, though I'm not sure how you would go about doing that. Reformulated. (I know one good scientist with this last name, but not in the diamond field :) Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "followed later by hundreds of Chinese entrants" Entrants in what? Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished this" accomplished what? Diamond synthesis. Fixed.Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplished diamond synthesis by misappropriating trade secrets from GE via a Korean former GE employee in 1988" This sentence is somewhat ambiguous. What happened in 1988, the synthesis or the misappropriation (or both)? Did Iljin Diamond allegedly accomplish diamond synthesis, or did he definitively accomplish diamond synthesis by means of an alleged misappropriation? Fixed. BTW, this was another display of power (of diamond business): not only that difficult, ("international") case was won, but the Korean government had to revise their laws, and GE managed to close down the diamond production at IIjin. The case entered law books as example of trade wars. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) The Later developments section seems to be out of order. Why is there information about the 1980s before the information about the 1970s? I understand the concern, but please note the word gem-quality which is the key there. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Eh, I suppose it's not that critical that it be in chronological order. It does seem to flow more logically with the gem-quality diamonds coming after the rest of it. "Gem-quality" doesn't need to be italicized, though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "Synthetic gem-quality diamond crystals were first produced in 1970 (reported in 1971) again by GE" The "again" is somewhat ambiguous. Had gem-quality diamonds been produced before, making this the second instance? Or does "again" refer to GE's consistent ability to provide breakthroughs in the field? In the latter case, I suggest removing "again" to avoid the confusion. "Again" removed. Yes, the latter was meant. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "Large crystals need to grow very slowly under tightly controlled conditions." This sentence disrupts the flow of the paragraph. The information it provides is not relevant until several sentences later. Deleted.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "The first successes used a pyrophyllite tube seeded at each end with thin pieces of diamond and with the graphite feed material placed in the center, the metal solvent, nickel, was placed between the graphite and the seeds." This is a run-on sentence. I suggest reworking to split it up or otherwise make it flow better. Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "The container was heated and the pressure was raised to ~5.5 GPa" Scientists and mathematicians will know what the tilde represents, but many readers will not. I suggest replacing all instances with "approximately" or some variant thereof. ~ is replaced all through.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "The graphite feed was soon replaced by diamond grit, as there was almost no change in material volume so the process was easier to control." As this sentence is written, it is unclear what the causes and effects are. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, please do. If not, would you mind explaining it to me so we can figure a better wording? Reformulated.Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Better, but now you've introduced technical jargon. What are "morphology" and "crustal"? Suggest explaining, wikilinking, or avoiding. morphology→shape and crustal→crystal.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "Removing all nitrogen from the process by adding aluminum or titanium produced colorless "white" stones, and removing the nitrogen and adding boron produced blue ones. However, removing nitrogen slows the growth process and reduces the crystalline quality, so the process is normally run with nitrogen present" [Bolding added for emphasis]. The first sentence is written in the past tense, whereas the second sentence is written in the present. Converted to the more appropriate past tense.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "In terms of physical properties, the GE stones were not quite identical to natural stones." I assume that this sentence is trying to convey the following: "Although the GE stones and natural diamonds are chemically identical, their physical properties were not the same." Yes? Yes, thank you. Placed in the text. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "The colorless stones produced strong short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively) under short-wavelength ultraviolet light but were inert under long-wave UV (among natural diamonds, only rare blue stones do this)" A couple of issues here. First, this rather long sentence can be shortened by removing "short- and long-lasting light emission (fluorescence and phosphorescence, respectively)" with just "fluorescence and phosphorescence". Second, if you wish to use "UV" rather than spelling out the entire phrase again, you must put "(UV)" after the first instance of "ultraviolet". Finally, the second parenthetical remark would probably be clearer if it were set off into a separate sentence and expanded slightly: "Among natural diamonds, only the rarer blue gems exhibit these properties." Shortened. UV defined (my fault, in science literature some abbreviations should not be defined).Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) No worries. When in doubt, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "All the GE stones also showed strong yellow fluorescence under X-rays" While the previous sentence made a clear comparison between the GE stones and natural diamonds, this statement does not. I suggest either expanding or deleting. Could well be deleted, but I reformulated instead.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has since grown, for research purposes only, stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g)." At this point, it is unclear what "since" refers to, as the last mention of a date was 1970. "for research purposes only" seems redundant. The name of the organization includes the word "research", does it not? "Since" deleted, "research" not. Names mean little in the business world (you might hear fancy brands like "Rhodium Heart Charm" with no relation to rhodium, etc. :). To get serious, De Beers is the king of the diamond world, and the biggest sponsor of the diamond research. For a good reason, they have separately stated, everywhere they could, that they never grew diamonds for gems.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough, but by inserting that into the middle of the sentence, it almost reads as though you're advertising what nice guys they are. I think a suitable compromise would be to move it to the end of the sentence: "The De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory has grown stones of up to 25 carats (5.0 g) for research purposes." Alternatively, if you can find concise examples of how they use the diamonds for research, that would work too. If you really want to make it clear that De Beers is research only, perhaps it would be better to show the reader rather than to tell the reader, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Moved to the end. Its Ok to tell about DeBeers research, but in another FA :) Their range is vast and they tell nobody what they are up to. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "For growing such diamonds, stable HPHT conditions have to be kept for 6 weeks." Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I suggest rewording to avoid the "have to" construction. Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "However, most stones are 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg) for economic reasons, especially with the spread of the Russian BARS apparatus since the 1980s" First, most of which stones? Those produced by De Beers? Second, the second clause is entirely confusing to those readers (all of them, I'd imagine) who are not already familiar with the BARS apparatus. If you think it is important enough to be mentioned here, I would suggest expanding it. If not, I would suggest removing it. Rephrased.Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "Those large stones were a mere demonstration." Demonstration of what? To whom? I expanded to "demonstration of the growth possibilities." Not much meaning here. Please tweak as you like. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and deleted it. It doesn't really add anything to the article and the paragraph flows much better without it. Do you agree? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Its Ok. Materialscientist (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "the growth of most synthetic diamonds is interrupted" The word "interrupted" often implies that the process continues after the interruption has ended. Perhaps "halted" or "terminated" or "stopped"?~ Sure. I chose "terminated". Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "when they reach weight 1 carat (200 mg) to 1.5 carats (300 mg)" I'm not familiar with diamond trade literature, but shouldn't this be "they reach a weight of 1 carat" ? Sure. Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I've added a fact tag to the end of this paragraph. Some of the information about De Beers may be covered by Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge, but statements with numbers must be followed by an inline citation. Ref. added. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I've tweaked the first few sentences of the next paragraph. Let me know if I screwed anything up. Somebody already tweaked Soviet Union, and I support that. I slightly changed the CVD statement. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "Eversole reportedly achieved vapor deposition" What is Eversole? A wikilink or a brief introductory phrase, such as "Eversole, a material engineering company," would be helpful. "William G. Eversole" :) Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Lol, humans ftw. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "the Russian team" It won't be obvious to all readers that Deryagin and Fedoseev are Russian names. Suggest replacing Deryagin and Fedoseev with "a Russian team" or "the Russian team" with "Deryagin and Fedoseev". For several good reasons I chose the latter. Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "It uses large presses that can weigh a couple of hundred tons" Suggest changing "it uses" to "the process involves". "A couple" is both ambiguous and unencyclopedic. Suggest "several hundred tons". Changed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Eh, "a few" isn't much better than "a couple of". If you think "several" is too strong a term, how about "hundreds of tons"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) The latter is better. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "Other methods are explosive formation (forming detonation nanodiamonds) and sonication of graphite solutions" Suggest changing "are" to "include". There may well be other methods whose details have not been published yet, eh? Changed. Your intuition was right - there are other methods, but they are not recognized (as reproducible or "reasonably efficient"). Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "wherein the upper and lower anvils supply the pressure load and heating current to a cylindrical volume" What is a "heating current"? Suggest wikilinking or rewording. A cylindrical volume of what? Tweaked. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Caption: "Schematic of a belt press". Is this really a schematic? I would think "diagram" would be a more apt moniker. "Schematic" is because it is a very, very simplified picture of a real setup. "Diagram" is closer to reality, in my understanding. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) First sentence of schematic: "A schematic is a diagram that represents the elements of a system using abstract, graphic symbols rather than realistic pictures." Good enough for me. I guess I had wrongly associated the term "schematic" with "blueprint". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "A variation of the belt press uses hydraulic pressure to confine the internal pressure, rather than steel belts" Suggest moving "rather than steel belts" to immediately after "hydraulic pressure" to reduce ambiguity. Moved. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) "Belt presses are still used today by the major manufacturers at a much larger scale than the original designs" This sentence gives mixed messages: First, that belt presses are still used today. Second, that today's belt presses are much larger than old ones. Also, it's not clear exactly what "the major manufacturers" refers to. Suggested rewrite: "Modern belt presses are built on a much larger scale than those of the original design." Tweaked. Thank you. I do support your message at talk:FA, but do not think my voice there will break the wall; thus I would rather turn to where I can help WP. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Aye, we all feel the need to hoot and holler like infinite monkeys from time to time, but in the end the best thing we can do is just quietly help out to the best of our abilities. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "The cubic press was created shortly thereafter to increase the pressurized volume." Slightly unclear. How about "volume to which pressure could be applied" instead of "pressurized volume"? It's longer, but clearer too, I think. The former is conventional in diamond literature, but your phrase is fine and I copy/pasted it there.Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "A cubic press is typically smaller than a belt press and can achieve the pressure and temperature necessary to create synthetic diamond faster." Some ambiguity as to what "faster" refers to. Can the press make diamonds faster because it achieves higher temp/pressure? Or can it more rapidly achieve the same temp/pressure as the belt press? If the first case, suggested rewrite: "A cubic press is typically smaller than a belt press and can achieve higher pressures and temperatures, allowing it to produce synthetic diamond more rapidly than is possible with a belt press." or some such. If the second case, suggested rewrite: "A cubic press is typically smaller than a belt press and can more rapidly achieve the pressure and temperature necessary to create synthetic diamond." Fixed. The latter was meant. Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "One could increase the pressurized volume by either increasing the size of the anvils (thereby increasing by a great factor the amount of force needed on the anvils to achieve a similar pressurization) or by decreasing the surface area to volume ratio of the pressurized volume (by using more anvils to converge upon a different platonic solid, such as a dodecahedron), but such a press would be unnecessarily complex and difficult to manufacture." This is a very long sentence. The fact that it discusses two distinct things in detail makes me think that it could very easily be split up into two sentences, which would eliminate the need to use parentheses. Also, "one could" is unencyclopedic. That construction can be avoided in the following way: "The pressurized volume can be increased by either..." Split up the whole sloppy phrase, using your prologue. Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "BARS is the smallest, most efficient and economical" Should be either "BARS is the smallest, most efficient and most economical" or, if you'd like to avoid reusing "most", "BARS is the most compact, efficient, and economical". Fixed Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) "of all the diamond-producing setups" It is unclear whether "setups" refers to the different press designs or to all of the methods mentioned in the article (CVD, detonation, sonication). Suggest replacing "setups" with either "presses" in the first case or "methods" in the second. Changed to "presses" Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) "The cell is placed into a cube of pressure-transmitting material" Do you know of any examples of pressure-transmitting materials that are used? I added the most common, but I know some people use proprietary tweaks (e.g. adding something for machineability, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) "which is pressed by elements made from cemented carbide (VK10 hard alloy)" First, what is meant by "elements"? Second, what does "VK10 hard alloy" refer to? "VK10" does not appear anywhere in the cemented carbide article. VK10 is yet to specific for WP; it is mentioned for the sake of accuracy. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Still uses "elements". In an article like this, readers might wrongly assume that "elements" refers to the "chemical elements". Yes/No. There was no confusion with chemical elements, but your next comment was absolutely right, and thus terms are changed to comply with the figure (the figure was added later than the text was written; thats why all this).Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The items in the BARS diagram don't seem to match up to the description in the text. Is the "reaction cell" the same as the "synthesis capsule"? Is the "steel sector" the same as the "steel outer anvil"? Is the "barrel" the same as the "outer pressure vessel"? Fixed, both the image and text. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Not quite. The text does not mention the "synthesis capsule" or the "tungsten carbide inner anvil". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Quick-fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Fine for now, but you may want to touch up that image before FAC. Inconsistent font size and the odd spacing in "inner anvil" look quite sloppy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Out of curiosity, have you considered writing a daughter article for HPHT diamond synthesis (or whatever you think it should be called)? CVD and detonation both have their own articles. Splitting it off into a separate article would allow you to cut the HPHT section down to a comparable size as the others. I've written such split-offs in the past (e.g., 1, 2). I stopped for now because they are too specific and switched to more popular topics - that gives me more interaction with people. There are hundreds of ways to describe this topic. Yes, HPHT/CVD ratio is a bit unbalanced, but CVD growth has its own article, and I'm yet hesitant to improve it (not because I don't know, just not fun :) Another note, I write quickly, especially on WP. This reduces quality, but allows me to stay in touch with dozens of different topics per day (my WP areas need such major fixes that I can do them within minutes or even seconds). Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC) It isn't entirely clear from the CVD section whether CVD has been successful and is in use today or if it is still theoretical. This ambiguity is largely created by the use of vague phrases such as "a great deal of research" and "The energy source is intended to generate plasma" and "still under study". Quick-fixed. Those kind of phrases are missed leftovers (I did not write this particular article from the start). Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC) "Since the early 1980s, this method has been the subject of active world-wide research." What does "active" mean? Changed to "intensive". Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) "Whereas HPHT diamond still dominates the industrial applications, CVD is the most popular laboratory growth technique for diamond." Why? It is too vague to explain in the article. Too many subtleties. For example, HPHT process, on average, provides higher quality, but it requires large, reinforced working space (heavy presses), often non-standard (higher power) power supplies, and needs a mechnical workshop (some press parts degrade quickly and are often re-made by the growers) - this all suits better to industry. On the contrary, CVD setups are easier and more flexible, could be just a ripped microwave oven. They also allow much more variation in the growth conditions. This all suits much better to research labs. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) How about something like "Whereas the higher-quality diamond generated by the HPHT process make it the more suitable choice for industrial applications, the flexibility and simplicity of CVD setups make it the more suitable choice for research applications" ? I realize that this might oversimplify the issue, but readers should at least be entitled to some clue as to why CVD the different methods are used for different applications. I rewrote that sentence within the above lines. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "and providing conditions for diamond growth on the substrate" This is very vague. Expanded. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I've now realized that the sentence highlighted above was meant to serve as a sort of "intro" sentence: Briefly explain the steps of the process all at once before going into detail for each one. If you choose to keep it like this, I would suggest moving the paragraph (or this sentence) around to have them both appear in the same order. In other words, since the substrate bit appears at the end of the sentence, it should also appear at the end of the paragraph. Also, the paragraph does not mention the "chamber" that is used here. Honestly, I did not fully understand this comment, but just looked at the paragraph and fixed an order of some sentences. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I'll try to make it a bit clearer. Consider this sentence: "it involves feeding varying amounts of gases into a chamber, energizing them and providing conditions for diamond growth on the substrate". This sentence serves to introduce the aspects involved in the growth process before going into more detail. The sentence introduces each aspect in the following order: Gases, chamber, energization, substrate conditions. The paragraph that follows, however, currently discusses the components in the following order: Substrate conditions, gases, energization. I think the introductory sentence and the paragraph should discuss the elements in the same order. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I see. Not crucial (because order of processes in real process is not that clear cut, but somewhat mixed up), but I tried to straighten this up. Materialscientist (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Now you've (perhaps unintentionally) deleted the introductory sentence. I thought it served as a good way to tie the paragraph together before elaborating on the individual components. Also, what about the chamber? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I don't remember deleting anything there; just expanded. I added comments on chamber. Materialscientist (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Whoops, I missed it. Here: "The advantages of CVD diamond growth include the ability to grow diamond over large areas and on various substrates, and the fine control over the chemical impurities and thus properties of the diamond produced. The growth typically occurs under low pressure (1–27kPa); it involves substrate preparation, feeding varying amounts of gases into a chamber and energizing them." I think the first sentence (advantages) should go in the previous paragraph. I also think the bit about pressure could probably be expanded and lumped into the first paragraph too: "Unlike HPHT, CVD does not require high pressures, as the growth typically occurs at pressures under 27 kPa" or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds much better. I have put this into the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "The gases always include a carbon source and hydrogen with a typical ratio 1:99" Suggest adding an example of a carbon source. Added (methane is the gas of choice). Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) "The energy source is intended to generate plasma in which the gas molecules are broken down to chemically active radicals" Is there something to which "chemically active radicals" can be linked? Linked. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) "The actual chemical processes for diamond growth are diverse because of the very wide variety of the growth processes used" Incredibly redundant and useless sentence. Deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) "The substrate preparation includes carefult choice of the appropriate material and its crystallographic orientation" Currently reads like a how-to guide. Suggest rewriting to avoid the use of the word "carefult". Avoided. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "proprietary substrate cleaning" What exactly are you trying to convey with "proprietary"? Deleted. The meaning was that everyone uses his own tricks at that stage, which makes some better growers than others. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "and heating the substrate to a certain, well-controlled temperature (about 800 °C) during the growth" There seems to be an odd contrast between "certain, well-controlled" and "about". Is it exact or is it approximate? Left unchanged. The trick here is that the substrate is kept at a certain temperature, with a high stability (well controlled), and this value is close to 800 C, but. The exact temperature is not really known (because its measurement during the growth is technically difficult due to the plasma). Thus it is tediously optimized in a series of test runs. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I see. The conundrum is that what you've just described to me here is not conveyed in the article, but it would be difficult to concisely and encyclopedically express it. How about replacing "and heating the substrate to a certain, well-controlled temperature (about 800 °C) during the growth" with "and optimizing the growth temperature (about 800 °C) through a series of test runs"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Good. Rewritten this way. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "In particular, CVD diamond is usually contaminated by silicon originating from the silica windows of the growth chamber or from the silicon substrate" The use of "usually" seems odd to me. If this is such a common problem that it "usually" happens, surely some effort would have been made to eliminate it by now, yes? My instinct would be to replace "usually" with "often". Replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Therefore, silica windows are either avoided or moved away from the substrate" This sentence follows the boron sentence, but it should follow the silica sentence. Moved. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "individual chamber is used for every doping element" Huh? I really have no idea what this sentence refers to. Deleted. (standard chemical practice was meant here - use one beaker for one chemical) Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Energy sources include microwave power, hot filament, arc discharges, welding torch, laser, electron beam, and others" Suggest pluralizing those items with are count nouns: "Energy sources include microwave power, hot filaments, arc discharges, welding torches, lasers, electron beams, and others." True from grammar point, but misleading physically: you can technically put several torches, discharges, filaments, etc., in one chamber, and some even do so (e.g. multifilament systems have their advantages), but this is what I want to avoid saying. Usual way is one souce per chamber. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Okay, how about "Most setups use one energy source per chamber: microwave power, a hot filament, arc discharges, a welding torch, a laser, or an electron beam." ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I fixed it another way. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC) That isn't grammatically perfect either. If you isolate one element of the list, the sentence reads as such: "The gases are ionized into chemically active radicals in the growth chamber using welding torch." My original recommendation stands: pluralize the count nouns. You said yourself that some systems use multiple energy sources, so even if readers misinterpret the pluralization to mean multiple sources, it's not that far off from the truth. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Several gases can perfectly be ionized with one plasma torch, both physically and grammatically. As you noticed, I do oppose plural here for scientific reasons. (because multiple source CVD systems do exist, but are not to be encouraged in this paper.) Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I think you might have missed the point of my last comment. The sentence I wrote out is missing either an article ("a" or "the") or pluralization. If you don't want to pluralize, then you have to add articles. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, sure I have. I am quite bad in this (missing articles). Please correct when you see that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "The chamber design is important" Juts out as being very unencyclopedic. Suggest omitting. Maybe, but I feel some prose is required for transition there. Cutting off that trivial phrase would create a dicontinuity. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Well, instead of saying that the chamber design is important, you should show the reader: "The chamber design incorporates a number of factors, such as..." or "The chamber design depends on a number of factors, including..." Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Good advice. Rewritten. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Better, but a bit unnatural. Suggest replacing "The chamber design takes into account that during the growth" with "The main factor in the chamber design is that during the growth". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Nopp. This is maybe No10 factor in chamber design. You need to hold plasma and toxic gases at high temperature first. Most people never bother about silicon, but when you reach state-of-the-art, such things do get out. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC) If the silicon windows are, as you say, the 10th most important factor in chamber design, then why on earth does the article not mention the other 9? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Hm, how to explain .. When we move to a new house, we look at the color of the walls and such things, i.e. we suppose that the house will not collapse by the wind tomorrow and that water, electricity and internet will not stop :). Very much the same here. The chamber is supposed to contain plasma of several kilowatt power (which etches away any material) for periods of many days, toxic gases, high-pressure water and high-power electricity lines. Everything should be very stable and not leak anywhere. Those are silent No 1-9; they are important to the scientists operating the setup, but not for the consumers of their product - for those, silicon comes important. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Okay then, how about "One of the important factors in chamber design is that during the growth,"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC) "Diamond nanocrystals (5 nm in diameter), called detonation nanodiamond," this phrase seems misleading, as it seems to suggest that all diamond nanocrystals are formed by detonation. Is this true? Good point I didn't think about. It seems there is no other method to produce 5-nm diamonds, but even if so, the text was sloppy and is changed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC) "This material is called "detonation nanodiamond"." It is unclear what "this" refers to: the carbon-containing explosives, or the diamond nanocrystals? Fixed. (It would be weird though to refer to explosives as diamond :) - forgive my neverending irony) Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "Detonation nanodiamond is only now beginning to reach the market in bulk quantities, for polishing applications, principally from Russia and China." Three distinct ideas sloppily thrown together. Suggested rewrite: "Detonation nanodiamond, used primarily in polishing applications, is only now beginning to reach the market in bulk quantities. It is produced primarily in Russia and China." or some such. Done. Added ukraine for completeness. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Caption: "Detonation nanodiamond, TEM image" Does "TEM" stand for tunneling electron microscope? Suggest linking. Clarified. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) "Diamond nanocrystals can be synthesized from a suspension of graphite in organic liquid" Suggest replacing "organic" with "carbon-containing". I would, but the source says "organic" :) Note the crucial difference with detonation technique - here diamond is produced from graphite. That liquid is only a solvent, its carbon content might be irrelevant. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "The yield is about 10%" Huh? Not sure what this refers to. Standard jargon for that field. Clarified. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "Cost of nanodiamond produced by this method is estimated to be competitive with that for the HPHT process" Suggested rewrite: "The estimated cost of nanodiamond produced by this method is comparable to that of the HPHT method." Replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "This technique is relatively simple" How so? Simple because of the small number of tools needed? Simple because it doesn't take very long? Simple because the required materials are inexpensive and readily accessible? All the above :) Clarified. Off record. Diamond growth is never that simple as it might look for ultrasonic synthesis. The authors do not show off the drawbacks, but I can see them between the lines. The major one is poor diamond quality. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "atmospheric pressure and room temperature" suggest replacing with or linking to standard conditions for temperature and pressure Linked. (I'll stop signing - waste of WP space) "Traditionally, purity and crystallinity are considered as basic diamond properties" I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to convey. Tweaked. An introductory phrase. I'm sure you can write better. "Purity and high crystalline perfection make diamond transparent and clear" Suggest replacing "diamond" with "the diamond", "a diamond", "diamonds", or "diamond material". Yes, diamonds. "Whereas high optical dispersion is an intrinsic property of all diamonds, other properties vary, and are expanded below." Suggest replacing "and are expanded below" with some statement about the various methods of synthesizing diamond: "Whereas high optical dispersion is an intrinsic property of all diamonds, its other properties vary depending on how the diamond is created." Replaced, but changed "is" to "was" (intuitive feeling). Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "Diamond can be one single, continuous crystal or it can be made up of many smaller crystals (polycrystal)." Suggest linking to either polycrystal or polycrystalline diamond, though the latter is a redirect to this article. Linked to "polycrystal". The latter article was absolutely useless and thus blanked by yours truly :) Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "Large single-crystal diamond is typically used in gemstones, whereas polycrystalline diamond goes to industrial applications such as mining and cutting tools." The use of "goes to" is a bit odd. Suggest replacing with "is used in" or "is used for". Replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "the diamond is often described by the average size of the crystals that make it up, called the grain size" Suggest moving "grain sizes" to earlier in the sentence: "the diamond is often described by the average size (or grain size) of the crystals that make it up". Replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "A diamond's hardness strongly varies depending on its impurities and crystallinity" Suggest omitting "strongly". It doesn't really sound natural to say that something "strongly varies". Consider inserting "primarily" after "depending". Done both.Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "and the hardness can be tuned for specific applications" Is "tuned" the right word here? I would think "adjusted" or "calibrated" would be more encyclopedic. Hard to find a right word here. I chose controlled (adjusted or calibrated are possible, but do not fit scientifically). Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "Some single-crystal diamonds grown through HPHT synthesis or CVD, and HPHT nanocrystalline diamonds (see hyperdiamond) are harder than any known natural diamond." This is slightly confusing because it mentions HPHT twice. Suggested rewrite: "Some synthetic single-crystal diamonds and HPHT nanocrystalline diamonds (see hyperdiamond) are harder than any known natural diamond." Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "No crystal is absolutely pure." Also, does this refer to all types of crystals, or to just diamonds? Or to just synthetic diamonds? Trivial phrase equivalent to "Nobody is perfect". Rewritten to "Every diamond contain atoms other than carbon in concentrations detectable by analytical techniques." The fact is trivial (i.e. every scientist knows) and general (all crystals). I would not require a reference here. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "While impurities can be unwanted, they can also be introduced on purpose to control the properties of the diamond." Somewhat unencyclopedic. Suggestion: "While impurities are generally avoided, they can be introduced intentionally as a way to control certain properties of the diamond." Replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "allowing it to be used in new technological applications." Suggest replacing "new technological applications" with some examples. Changed to electronic applications. I could be more specific, but did not believe it is a right place there. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "but diamond with boron added is an electrical conductor and even superconductor," Suggest replacing "an electrical conductor and even superconductor" with "a covalent superconductor". Left almost unchanged. Conductivity appears in all boron doped diamonds, but superconductivity only in some. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I set if off in parentheses. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Good. "The thermal conductivity of pure diamond is already the highest among any known solid." Why "already"? No need. Deleted. "However, its value is reduced" The value of the diamond or the value of the thermal conductivity? "Thermal conductivity" is meant there. Changed "its value" to "it is" - repeating "the thermal conductivity" instead seemed too awkward. Hmm, "Therefore, monocrystalline synthetic diamond" This is the only instance of "monocrystalline". Suggest defining this term in the "Crystalline" section. Changed monocrystalline to "single crystals" (those are equivalent in science, thats why I did not even think it could be confusing) "which ruins the ideality of the 12C diamond lattice in terms of thermal conduction" What does "ideality" mean? I tried to explain. 13C is same as 12C for most properties, but not for thermal conductivity - there, this isotope acts as an "impurity" "have the highest of all thermal conductivity" Highest of all what? Of all crystals? Of all diamonds? Of any material. Changed. "Given the extraordinary set of physical properties diamond exhibits, diamond has and could have a wide-ranging impact in many fields." I don't think this is even necessary. If you really want to have an introductory sentence to the applications section, it shouldn't sound quite as promotional as this. Sure. Deleted. The "Machining and cutting tools" section is oddly organized. I suggest moving the cutting tool information out of the first paragraph and into the second paragraph. Perhaps the machining bit should be expanded too. I'm really hesitant to expand because I do not like that field at all. I merged those paragraphs. What was wrong with the order? Note that PCD (small diamond grown somewhere and embedded into metal) and diamond coated tools (diamond is grown over metal) are different things. Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) "PCD-tipped tools can be found in mining and in the automotive aluminum cutting industry" I must admit that I had never heard of the "automotive aluminum cutting industry". Is there really such an industry? Suggested rewrite: "PCD-typped tools are used in mining and in the automotive industry." I've never heard that either, but I'm not much of a specialist in that. Changed to cutting (which is more general and is a real application).Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC) "the usage of synthetic diamond is far greater" Perhaps "more common" would be more neutral than "greater". Also, why is this? Changed. Let me think why .. size, price and reproducibility: Those diamonds are small (sub-millimeter). Such diamonds are much more difficult to recover from (tons of) chunky minerals than from the cubic centimeters (maximum) of the product you get out of the synthetic process. (A very practical point - crushed minerals roll on a belt line through a "diamond detector" sensing some signal, usually optical. Signal from small diamond is small. Increasing detector sensitivity is possible, but then spurious minerals will get along) Also, talking about HPHT process, which is mostly used for those diamonds, small diamonds are grown there in a much quicker and easier way than large crystals - a run of few minutes is enough. No need for stability and careful assembly of the growth cell, which is required for large single crystals. In the end, HPHT becomes much cheaper for small crystals, and this is what matters most in industry. Another reason is the much better reproducibility of the diamond properties for synthetic diamonds, which is again important here (meaning they can "guarantee" your drill bit will run for xxx hours on yyy rock, which is impossible with natural stones). Perhaps a condensed version of your explanation should be added here. I added, but only a bit, not to disbalance that short subsection. Another reason is it is too risky to speculate on diamond processing and price matters - those are confidential areas where I know something, but that knowledge might not be accurate or representative of the world situation. "and though the work still shows promise it has not significantly displaced traditional PCD tools" Suggest replacing "displaced" with "replaced". Replaced "Because of superior thermal conductivity and dielectric properties of diamond" Superior to what? Changed to excellent. No citation is given for any of the information regarding machine tools. The closest ref (Ref 37, Coelho et al) only discusses PCD. PCD is closely related to machine tools and cutting tools, thus the texts of two refs for that paragraph cover most aspects. It is easy to add a ref., I just didn't feel it is necessary. Earlier I suggested making a clearer division between machining tools and cutting tools, but here you indicate that the two are related and are covered by the same ref. If that's true, I suggest replacing "Diamond has long been used in machine tools" with "Diamond has long been used in machine tools and cutting tools" to make it clear from the beginning that the two are related. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Replaced. There are differences, but too minor to distinguish them in this article. The paragraph about thermistors doesn't really seem relevant to this article. It is not specific to synthetic diamond, nor is it actually an application of diamond itself. It is relevant to separation of diamonds (any, synthetic or not) from their simulants. Thermistors there are only part of detection. The process is explained in detail because it is a popular topic - many people want to know how do traders deal with simulants. Perhaps, but this article isn't about diamond simulants, a probable point of confusion for our novice readers. The inclusion of largely irrelevant discussion of diamond simulants will only serve to perpetuate that confusion, whereas the exclusion of this paragraph would help to abate it. It certainly seems worth mentioning in Diamond or Diamond simulants, but not here. Also, keep in mind that this isn't actually an application of diamond. It is an application of thermistors in the field of diamonds. As such, it has no place in the "Applications" section if it were to even remain in the article (which it shouldn't). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, not in applications, but how about moving this paragraph to the "Properties", "Thermal conductivity" ? I think it is an important property to be mentioned, as it allows identifying a (synthetic) diamond. Materialscientist (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Moved. "Diamond is hard, chemically inert, it has a high thermal conductivity and low thermal expansion, in contrast to many window materials used for the infrared and microwave parts of the spectrum." Yikes. The list at the beginning of the sentence isn't grammatically proper. Suggested rewrite: "Diamond is hard, chemically inert, and has high thermal conductivity and low thermal expansion" Also suggest rewording/linking to include coefficient of thermal expansion. I really have no idea what the second part of this sentence means. How is a window used for a part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Tweaked. "Therefore, diamond is starting to replace zinc selenide and other materials as the output window of high-power CO2 lasers and gyrotrons." Suggest replacing "Therefore" with "Because of these properties". Might not be needed because of above tweaking. "Those windows should have shapes of disks having large diameter (about 10 cm for gyrotrons) and small thickness (to reduce absorption)." Reads like an instruction manual. I suggest reformulating to indicate how the windows are shaped and not how they should be shaped. Reformulated. "In these shape requirements, CVD diamond outperforms any other diamond varieties." Suggest replacing "In these shape requirements" with "Under these constraints" or some such. Also, what does it mean to outperform in this context? Tried to clarify. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I've skimmed over the entire "Applications" section. I think that this section should omit (or briefly summarize) any application which is not unique to synthetic diamond. I think it should be replaced by an introductory paragraph including a statement like "Because they are chemically identical, synthetic diamond shares many of the same applications with natural diamond, including [list of applications]. There are, however, several applications for which synthetic diamond is better suited." Very good idea, but. All the mentioned applications are nowadays specific to synthetic diamond. Natural diamonds were never used in electronics and very rarely as windows and thermal conductors. They did dominate mechanical applications, but are being replaced by synthetics. The major application of natural diamonds is jewelry. Synthetics are being pushed out of there by all commercial ways and means. Materialscientist (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Why is it then that in this section "diamond" is used so much more often than "synthetic diamond"? Perhaps there should be a few sentences stating what it is about synthetic diamond (controlled properties, inexpensive, etc) that make it a more viable material for the applications. I suppose this could either be in an introductory section or make it specific to each application. I understand your point, and can only say that I and most diamond authors often do not think about distinguishing "diamond" and "synthetic diamond" in writing. I have run through the section replacing diamond with synthetic diamond where it should. Does this answer your concerns ? Materialscientist (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, so long as those changes are an accurate reflection of the literature. Browsing over the titles of the references, this does seem to be the case. Struck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC) The trick is most diamond writers simply say "diamond" without specifying. If specifying then we use "HPHT diamond" or "CVD diamond" ("synthetic" is too broad), but abbreviations are forbiden in the titles (with rare exceptions). "(LEDs, at 235 nm)" It isn't clear to me what measurement the 235 nm refers to. Emission wavelength. Clarified. "High mobility is favorable for high-frequency field-effect transitors" Is "transitors" supposed to be "transistors"? If so, consider linking to field-effect transistor. Fixed typo, linked. Looking over the applications section again, it seems that it is has much more CVD information than HPHT, even though the CVD section mentions that HPHT is more commonly used for industrial applications. Mechanical applications take the lion's share of the applications. They are so well established that have little literature coverage (all done >60 years ago). There is much literature on diamond electronics, but those are developing, low-volume applications. In other words, volume of writing does not reflect actual use (its like news - we prefer to hear about "nano" exotics rather than those boring reports on millons of tons of daily important materials). I added a sentence "This is by far the largest industrial application of diamond." into the "Machining and cutting tools" section, which (clumsily) tries to express that. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC) "diamonds can detect redox reactions" This gives me the image of a diamond walking along the beach with a redox reaction detector. Suggest either "diamonds can be used to detect redox reactions" or clarifying what "detect" means. "it can be used as an electrode under conditions that would destroy traditional materials. For such reasons, waste water treatment of organic effluents using diamond, as well as production of strong oxidants, have been reported." I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that diamond electrodes are used in waste water treatment and oxidant production? If so, perhaps something like "it can be used as an electrode under conditions that would destroy traditional materials. As an electrode, synthetic diamond is used in waste water treatment of organic effluents and the production of strong oxidants." If not, then perhaps a more substantial rewrite is in order. "they show promise for use in exceptionally high power situations and hostile environments. "Synthetic diamond shows great promise as a potential radiation detection device" Suggest rewriting one of these two sentences to avoid consecutive use of "shows promise". "Therefore, it is employed in applications such as the BaBar detector at the Stanford Linear Accelerator[54] or BOLD (Blind to the Optical Light Detectors for VUV solar observations)" Suggest replacing "therefore" with "because of these properties" or some such. Not sure what that "or" is doing there; suggest replacing it with "and" unless I've misinterpreted something. Thank you. Not much to comment, just replaced as suggested with minor tweaking. Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC) "Pure single-crystal synthetic diamonds are approaching the very high purity and crystallographic structure perfection required to replace silicon in devices such as synchrotrons used in CT scanning" Suggest making it clearer that it is not the individual diamonds that are improving in quality, but the technology used to produce them. Tried.

Unresolved issues

• • "they will be able to sustain the increased intensities of next generation light sources." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Perhaps "they may be used in the next generation of light sources to sustain higher intensities" or some such.

    Sure. Replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

    "synthetic diamond may be used in the next generation of light sources to sustain higher intensities of next generation light sources" A tad redundant, yes? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

    Oh dear, not the redundancy - the whole text is in the wrong section. I have moved it to another one (optical).

  • The table in the Gemstones section seems unnecessary and promotional. I suggest removing it.

    I nearly deleted it twice myself, and was just waiting for someone to suggest that.

  • "The mined diamond industry is evaluating marketing and distribution countermeasures to these less expensive alternatives." It isn't clear what "these" refers to, as the previous sentence doesn't seem relevant to this one.

    Tweaked.

  • "The three largest distributors of natural diamonds have made public statements about selling their diamonds with full disclosure" Full disclosure of what?

    Tweaked. Could you please check my last changes and give a green light for FA nomination when ready. Whatever the article grading, you have done a lot to that (and are entitled to claim that as your contribution). Thank you indeed. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• That should be it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. Start up the FAC, and I'd be happy to add my support !vote. Great work, mate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)