Talk:Diffraction topography

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

I dont understand... if Bragg diffraction occurs, how it is that A homogeneous sample (with a regular crystal lattice) would yield a homogeneous intensity distribution in the topograph (a "flat" image). ? Should not there be a diffraction pattern? Not being an expert, I am confused between this page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction . How is it?

To User:Johnsoniensis, I think you forgot to sign and date. The text is not well written, particularly the lead. I have tried to clean it up a little both in the lead and elsewhere, although it needs more. In a nutshell, you get a projection image showing how much is diffracted at each place. It badly needs some images and diagrams. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know signing and dating is not required for adding WPs.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not needed, but it makes it easier to respond. I had to dig into the history to find you and then include you specifically.

More to the point, is it clearer now? If not I can tweak in a few days. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style

@Forbes72, I wanted to notify you here since you did an excellent job adding relevant references, but the article is still left in a poor state when there are virtually no inline citations. It would be appreciated if you can add footnotes to the sections that are supported by the literature that was added to make it more accessible; I haven't read the literature cited and wouldn't know which part is supported by each work. Recon rabbit 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you appreciate the update, but unfortunately I'm probably not the right person to ask. Before my edits all the citations were already there, I just looked up the DOI numbers on the publishers' websites and wrapped the information in a cite journal template so the papers would be a little easier to find (it also allows bots like OAbot and JCW-CleanerBot to work). I've probably reformatted thousands of Wikipedia's academic references like this, but that doesn't mean I've actually read all those papers. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 03:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying! I'll try to get in contact with the original authors then, or at least see if I can dig through the sources that are available online to clean up this article. Recon rabbit 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]