This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fiveling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Fiveling has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 11, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains self citation by one of the original editors (Ldm1954) to the Marks decahedra. As described in the article, there were two papers in 1983 and 1984 from Ldm1954 in Journal of Crystal Growth and Philosophical Magazine where a general model for the shape of fivelings was described. Other authors confirmed the shape, and in 1991 Charles Cleveland and Uzi Landman coined the name Marks decahedron for this type of particle. The name was subsequently adopted by the community and is widely used. The original article contains 13 citations to this editors work (out of 128), and two of the current twelve figures are from the editors work. Ldm1954 ( talk) 00:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
To Johan Kjellman, Mark Mauther, Mike Rumsey, Klaus Schäfer, Emilie Ringe, David J. Wales and Miguel José Yacamán for information and the donation of Creative Commons images. Ldm1954 ( talk) 04:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Ldm1954 ( talk · contribs) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: FuzzyMagma ( talk · contribs) 19:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The review process started earlier informally in April and this is building on that
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)
... or a five-fold twin is a type of twinned particleshould it be " twinned crystal".
(They also observed single crys .., remove the bracket.
(see later), make an internal link using #, as you did with
large volumes -- see also below.
While most of the details of the formation of fiveling nanoparticles are now understood,
Many papers have suggested possible links to heterogeneous catalysts.
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 details text was changed
No experimental evidence has been found for this process.I removed the sentence
Atomistic simulation of disclination movement in decahedral particles, showing ..can be made bigger.
, hence the question of whatis that you asking? Avoid editorialising as per MOS:EDITORIAL, the next sentence need sourcing if it is not from the Berry and Wales work.
While there are similarities, they are not the same and quasicrystals are now considered to be different from fivelings and the related icosahedral structures.
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)
Please feel free to challenge any of the following comments
dmyand
Use American Englishtemplate at the top of the page, near the description. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC) , although it is "Use" not tq.
Ldm1954 ( talk · contribs) and I cannot agree on which categories to include in this article. I think Ldm1954's preferred categories are overly broad, but they think mine are overly specific, and they have repeatedly reverted me. They also want to include categories that are redundant to lower ones, particularly Category:Chemistry, without good reason. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fiveling article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Fiveling has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 11, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains self citation by one of the original editors (Ldm1954) to the Marks decahedra. As described in the article, there were two papers in 1983 and 1984 from Ldm1954 in Journal of Crystal Growth and Philosophical Magazine where a general model for the shape of fivelings was described. Other authors confirmed the shape, and in 1991 Charles Cleveland and Uzi Landman coined the name Marks decahedron for this type of particle. The name was subsequently adopted by the community and is widely used. The original article contains 13 citations to this editors work (out of 128), and two of the current twelve figures are from the editors work. Ldm1954 ( talk) 00:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
To Johan Kjellman, Mark Mauther, Mike Rumsey, Klaus Schäfer, Emilie Ringe, David J. Wales and Miguel José Yacamán for information and the donation of Creative Commons images. Ldm1954 ( talk) 04:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Ldm1954 ( talk · contribs) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: FuzzyMagma ( talk · contribs) 19:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The review process started earlier informally in April and this is building on that
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)
... or a five-fold twin is a type of twinned particleshould it be " twinned crystal".
(They also observed single crys .., remove the bracket.
(see later), make an internal link using #, as you did with
large volumes -- see also below.
While most of the details of the formation of fiveling nanoparticles are now understood,
Many papers have suggested possible links to heterogeneous catalysts.
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 details text was changed
No experimental evidence has been found for this process.I removed the sentence
Atomistic simulation of disclination movement in decahedral particles, showing ..can be made bigger.
, hence the question of whatis that you asking? Avoid editorialising as per MOS:EDITORIAL, the next sentence need sourcing if it is not from the Berry and Wales work.
While there are similarities, they are not the same and quasicrystals are now considered to be different from fivelings and the related icosahedral structures.
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)
Please feel free to challenge any of the following comments
dmyand
Use American Englishtemplate at the top of the page, near the description. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC) , although it is "Use" not tq.
Ldm1954 ( talk · contribs) and I cannot agree on which categories to include in this article. I think Ldm1954's preferred categories are overly broad, but they think mine are overly specific, and they have repeatedly reverted me. They also want to include categories that are redundant to lower ones, particularly Category:Chemistry, without good reason. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)