Talk:Diffuse interstellar bands

Diffuse interstellar bands was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 15, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
September 5, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Astronomy Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spectroscopy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write required?

This article is a mess. It's been patched together by a group of authors who evidently have different views, and it contains some rather concerning factual inaccuracies (speaking as an active researcher in this field). In other words, I propose a re-write. Is anyone particularly opposed to this? ----InvaderXan (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it definitely does, we should have a chat about doing so. There are a couple of issues that need to be sorted first... Modest Genius ^talk 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caused by solid hydrogen ice?

Here's a recent article talking about solid hydrogen ice as a possible source of the diffuse interstellar bands:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26755/

-- Dan Griscom (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst interesting, that seems extremely speculative. The blogpost seems to confuse DIBs with the Unidentified Infrared (UIR) bands, which the actual article does not. The article does touch on DIBs, but is mostly focussed on a) whether solid hydrogen can exist, b) the formation of (HD)₃⁺ within the solid, and c) whether the vibrational transitions of that molecule line up with the UIR bands. I could get into an in-depth discussion of all of these, but given this is an article talk page I'll just say that there doesn't seem to be any reason to mention it in our article on DIBs. Literally dozens of molecules and solids have been suggested as DIB carriers. Most have no observational or laboratory evidence behind them whatsoever, and this is one of them. Modest Genius ^talk 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity ?

The last section seems very much inspired by the website of Harry Kroto and perhaps lacks objectivity

http://www.kroto.info/dibs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.199.146.250 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The focus on Buckminster fullerene in this entire article is just weird. It being one of the only(is it still the only? Not sure) confirmed species that make it up means it probably does deserve a section, but C60+ is just a small part of the DIB and the section+intro piece doesn't make that apparent at all in my opinion. Delete is probably too strong, but I'd be in favor of a rewrite. 2600:6C5A:467F:EBBA:5044:AC58:A6B0:FD43 (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh most of the article could do with a rewrite. I agree we need a section on C60+, as it's the only confirmed DIB carrier, but it shouldn't be a quarter of the entire article! I'm going to cut that section down a bit, but the bigger issue is properly expanding the rest of the article. Modest Genius ^talk 16:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up the C60+ section. Modest Genius ^talk 17:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]