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 |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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 alsobelow.
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
No experimental evidence has been found for this process.
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)
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 |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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 alsobelow.
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
No experimental evidence has been found for this process.
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)