Talk:Fiveling/GA1

GA Review

Passed. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs) 19:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
plagiarism check only 2% (Violation Unlikely) from scientific terms
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

The review process started earlier informally in April and this is building on that

Previous comments

I would be interested in your comments on Draft:Fiveling; there do not seem to be many active material scientists. I am still waiting for a couple of images from people before moving forward with a final version. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work @Ldm1954. I will read it in details ASAP. If you feel like nominating the article to a GA, please do and I will review it by the end of April. I’m sure it will pass with some minor comments. Thanks for writing such a detailed article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a very superficial look into a really excellent article

... or a five-fold twin is a type of twinned particle should it be "twinned crystal".Y
(They also observed single crys .., remove the bracket. Y
(see later), make an internal link using #, as you did with large volumes -- see also Ybelow.
cite some sources to avoid WP:weasel (as you did in different parts) for

While most of the details of the formation of fiveling nanoparticles are now understood,Y
Many papers have suggested possible links to heterogeneous catalysts.Y
In crystals the strains can be slightly different, the full details of which are still being debated., here it helps the reader (including myself) to find more detailsY text was changed
No experimental evidence has been found for this process.Y I removed the sentence

The figure labelled Atomistic simulation of disclination movement in decahedral particles, showing .. can be made bigger.Y

, hence the question of what is that you asking? Avoid editorialising as per MOS:EDITORIAL, the next sentence need sourcing if it is not from the Berry and Wales work. Y

similar to While there are similarities, they are not the same and quasicrystals are now considered to be different from fivelings and the related icosahedral structures.Y
Further reading section might be worth it and will compliment the External links section. I will think about this one. Off hand there is nothing that is not already in the article. I may add in later weeks/months.
there is a space at the end of "See also" sectionY
~~redlink Marks decahedron and Ino decahedron, I think they fit the Wikipedia:Red link or at least be bolden and redirect should be created to point to the section about them~~

for Formation at the nanoscale section, can you also upload some images from In Situ Atomic-Scale Observation of 5-Fold Twin Formation in Nanoscale Crystal under Mechanical Loading article, they are available under CC-BY 4.0.Y
Do we need a section for Formation at the micro-scale (more than 100 nanometres), see this exampleY It is in there, since the drawing from Rose is (probably) mm in size, and the photograph of the gold particle later is 0.5cm. Multiple sources say that they just grow larger and are metastable (already mentioned and cited), we can't say more because transforming a mm size fiveling to a single crystal has never occurred.
How about a section about their effect: given my background, I understand they have a profound effect on the (micro)mechanical properties, e.g., 1 and 2. I added a bit, but I think it is a bit of a digression. In the process of hunting I found Nanomechanics which needs major work, no refs
last thing, the article name, it seems that "five-fold twin" is used widely than Fiveling. See WP:COMMONNAME There are too many names! Fiveling was the original one, so I will stay with that. There are redirects

PS: it is really intimidating to review the work of someone with your in-depth knowledge about the topic. You have a a significant scientific phenomena named after you! so my review will be mostly about how we can get more from you :). Thank you for work. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your suggestions, most of which I have incorporated. I just moved it to main space, and will add some links. I want to wait a week before doing a GA nomination, but I do think that is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nice work, do not forget to expand the lead FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expanded, and GA nomination done (why not). Ldm1954 (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if it is not review by the end of May, I will give it go. Bit busy these days.. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will be in vacation May 30-June 25 so it might need to be later. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

will keep that in mind FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current comments

Please feel free to challenge any of the following comments

for note a and b, remove the bolding for words, as per MOS:NOBOLD. You can use single quote or {{em|...}} if you want to emphasise.FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y[reply]
(optional) for the first mention of "Marks decahedron" in the lead, can you please reference that using this reference Oxford Chemistry or Oxford Chemistry just to avoid any comments about COI especially that I do not see you have worked with Jonathan Doye, as these notes are used to teach postgraduate students. Feel free to choose any other text book source.FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y I added both the original naming and the book (thesis) you mentioned.[reply]
The last image in the article, there is a scale bar, can you add the value of that scale bar to the caption please.FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y[reply]
(optional) for image "Atomistic simulation of disclination movement in decahedral particles ..." see if you want to change the length to 300px (currently the width is 300px).FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y I compromised by making it 362x250[reply]
use dmy and Use American English template at the top of the page, near the description.FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Y, although it is "Use" not tq.[reply]
remove wikilink for "re referred to as a type of cyclic twins where.."Y The twin pages are less detailed than here, so now they link fivelings to this page.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.