Golconda diamonds 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
Crimes surrounding Golconda Diamonds was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 October 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Golconda diamonds. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Up to 100.00 people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.79.85 ( talk) 21:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Omer123hussain ( talk) 17:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Legends? What legends? It looks like someone put in legends which were then deleted and title remains? Ptilinopus ( talk) 13:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Omer123hussain: you made [ this] change. There is already a bunch of WP:UNSOURCED assertions in this article. More are not needed. I do not see how it is known where the diamonds were prepared for market. Also words like "cut", "polished" and "evaluated" are common words that do not need to be linked per MOS:OVERLINK. And the link for polish goes to Brilliant (diamond cut) and evaluated goes to Diamonds_as_an_investment#Pricing_formula. These are WP:EASTEREGG links and do not improve the article. Lastly Diamantaire is WP:JARGON for a diamond cutter, the more common name and should not be used. I am sorry to seem hypercritical, but what are you trying to achieve with this edit? Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 14:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I share the concerns of Richard-of-Earth. Further, we need WP:HISTRS sources here. Diamonds have attracted much scholarship, and peer reviewed scholarship should be summarized here for history, rather than questionable newspapers, blogs, etc. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 01:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Nolabob ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I have volunteered to review the Golconda diamonds article and intend to complete the review in a timely manner and in accord with the GA criteria. I have a generally favorable impression of the article. As a preliminary, I have evaluated the article with the ORES tool, which yielded a satisfactory result. See the detailed review below, which is updated as the review progresses and as further revisions to the article occur.
Nolabob (
talk)
21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is now much better and of suitable quality. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article now appears to comply with manual of style guidelines. However, see 1a above. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | These are well-done. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The article has a large number of in-line citations from reliable sources, which is definitely an attribute of this article. I have completed a spot check of the citations and concluded that these are suitable (now that the nominator has made appropriate corrections). Since I did find a couple of errors in a spot check, I encourage the nominator to conduct their own spot check of the citations. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I see no evidence for original research in the article. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's Copyvio Detector indicated no issues. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Scope of coverage is now satisfactory. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The focus of the article is appropriate. However, see comment in 3a. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The viewpoint is neutral. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article history indicates that it is stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The images in the article are all public domain from the Wikimedia Commons. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The nominator has satisfactorily addressed the concern about the images, and the infobox is sufficient as is. | |
7. Overall assessment. | The article now fully meets the GA criteria. |
Appreciate your keen sense of review and will do my best to make the recommended corrections by the reviewer.
@User:Omer123hussain Just to let you know, I much appreciate the excellent revisions you are making on this article. Nolabob ( talk) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@User:Omer123hussain Please address items 1a and 3a above. I believe this article is much improved. Once you address these two items, I can complete the review. Nolabob ( talk) 10:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I hope all the recommendations are fulfilled. :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 16:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Note that this review has been overturned after many problems with the article were found in the DYK review and afterwards. See the "GA removed" section at the talk page. Fram ( talk) 16:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
15:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
or
Improved to Good Article status by Omer123hussain ( talk). Self-nominated at 10:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Nomination would pass if the picture is removed. CSJJ104 ( talk) 13:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Although the Golconda mines have been depleted since 1830, they hold value as antique gemstones? Mines are not gemstones. And how can it possibly be that
Several literary legends were inspired by the Golconda diamonds and mines. These include such examples as the gem lore of the Priestly breastplate from the Old Testament-- you're saying the O.T. somehow references a mine in India? And later we have
Further the author describes that it was first cited in the 4th-century treatise of St Epiphanius (of Cyprus), as Gem lore, the Breastplate of the high priest of the Temple from Old Testament, and it was finally derived from Herodotus—430 BC-- the meaning of which utterly escapes me. What the hell is going on here? E Eng 19:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Computer reconstruction of the French Blue, previous form of the Hope diamondor something similar. – LordPeterII ( talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that, due to issues listed here and more issues I listed at the article talk page, I have removed the GA status from this article, as the GA review clearly wasn't up to standards. Accordingly, this DYK nom should be closed as the requirement of being a GA is no longer met. Fram ( talk) 08:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Nolabob:, I have removed GA status from this article, as it was far from the required level. I'll list some issues, other ones have already been raised at the DYK nomination by others.
" In the 1940s and 1950s, the De Beers advertising campaign "Diamonds are a girl's best friend", coupled with the accessorising of diamonds by elite society and celebrities, popularised Golconda diamonds (and diamonds generally) among society (standardising their use in engagement rings) and the fashion industry, which helped to boost the economic value of the diamond industry. "
Total nonsense. "Diamond's are a girl's best friend" was not the De Beers slogan ("A diamond is forever" was), and De Beers didn't promote the exhausted Indian Golconda diamonds, why would they? De Beers popularized diamonds, of course, but mainly their own, not a group of 100+ years old diamonds they had no financial interest in.
"During the ancient and medieval period, the Golconda diamonds were reserved for the Emperors and rulers and treasured as gemstones—believed to be a gift from God for mankind, and owning them was a sign of supremacy." Source? That diamonds were "treasured as gemstones" is superfluous of course, but the remainder needs a good source.
"Some diamonds are considered to have supernatural powers and were worn as amulet or talisman" Well, the source indicates that Indians in the 19th century thought that all jewellery and gemstones had these characteristics, not just "some diamonds".
rephrased the purpose of this sentence is to add the story of "Shah Jahan diamond".
"Golconda diamonds were popularized in the Middle East and the Western world by some of the 15th and 16th-century travelers and traders such as Niccolò de' Conti, Muhammad al-Idrisi, Marco Polo, and Jean-Baptiste Tavernier." Muhammad al-Idrisi is 12th century, Marco Polo is 13th century, and Tavernier is 17th century: only Conti is 15th, and none of them are 16th century...
"The Golconda diamonds are the world's most magnificent diamonds" is sourced to a 1817 source, perhaps we need something slightly more recent to make such claims?
"The Golconda diamonds are the world's most magnificent diamonds, and count less than two percent of the world’s natural diamonds." Nope, the source claims Golconda diamonds are often type IIa, and type IIa diamonds account for less than 2% of all diamonds. How many of the IIa actually come from Golconda is unclear. Almost all any way rephrased and
"making the legendary name "Golconda diamond" synonymous with Golconda itself"? Not clear what is meant here.
"In the 15th century Portuguese discovery of the sea route to India and 16th century Golconda Sultanate's new port at Machilipatnam had unfolded the region along with the Golconda diamond market for the European traders, it serves in the favor of both the trader's and the miner's economical values and ultimately affects the increase of Golconda diamond production." Long-winded, unclear sentence, things like "it serves in the favor of" and so on really don't belong in a GA.
" In the early 1900s private companies such as Cartier, De Beers and Van Cleef & Arpels created monopolies in their expertise in the jewellery trade-(particularly diamond), post World War II and post-Indian Independence, most of the cash-strapped governments and princely rulers came to an end—making them sell their jewels (that also consist of Golconda diamonds) which were later auctioned, and due to royal lineage, its mystical tales and advertising campaigns by these companies, the Golconda diamonds become the status reference globally making it exorbitant worth treasuring" Not really, no. This again references the De Beers ads, which had nothing to do with Golconda, and the sources also reference the "De Beers" diamond in the Patiala Necklace, which is not a Golconda diamond at all.
"According to Folklore some diamonds are alleged to be cursed, impart good luck to their owners, and possess Mystical powers while some diamonds can be worn as Talisman." Capitalization!
These are just some obvious issues, I haven't checked all text or all sources to find more issues. The article needs a thorough rewrite and doublecheck before a new GA review can be started. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I assume it's not a professional act of yours, without coming to a consensus you remove the GA tag, I am restoring it and coming to a consensus first on the talk page, and your concerns will be answered meanwhile. Furthermore, the article is under peer review so definitely it will expand and some errors may occur that is the purpose we need a GOCE review, but it doesn't mean it is a bad article. It takes a lot of effort for every article, you can't simply keep removing and deleting our hard work, in fact now I feel like you had taken something personally and tried to bully my work. :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 09:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
It would be better if you corrected and sourced things slowly, instead of making things worse by rushing. For example, you completely manged the "De Beers" sentence in the lead by removing just that part, it isn't really a sentence any longer now. And you tried sourcing "During the ancient and medieval period, the Golconda diamonds were reserved for the Emperors and rulers" to this, which says "The most beautiful stones discovered in Golconda were always reserved for kings and rulers ". This is not the same claim, and seems to match a mistake made throughout the article. While some of the Golconda diamonds are among the best, biggest, ... diamonds ever found, the article makes it sound as if all Golconda diamonds are these exceptional big whoppers, while most of them were small, typical, good but unexceptional diamonds used in jewellery by all kinds of people with some money: these diamonds were not "reserved for the Emperors and rulers" at all. Fram ( talk) 12:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An edit like this makes the article less factual, not better. Again, please slow down and make sure that what you edit is better, is sourced, is factual. You don't need to rush these things, but please try to get it right. Fram ( talk) 13:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
"obviously there will be errors"is really not a good attitude to have when writing content. There is no reason why content you added recently should have any errors in; certainly not errors as egregious as we have found here. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
There isn't any coverage of the geology of the diamonds: is it a kimberlite pipe, when did the eruption happen, did it have any special features that made it easier to mine than kimberlite pipes elsewhere which would explain why it was the one place mined in antiquity, etc. I don't know enough about this to write it but it would be good if someone did. David Bofinger ( talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Golconda diamonds 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
Crimes surrounding Golconda Diamonds was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 October 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Golconda diamonds. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Up to 100.00 people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.79.85 ( talk) 21:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Omer123hussain ( talk) 17:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Legends? What legends? It looks like someone put in legends which were then deleted and title remains? Ptilinopus ( talk) 13:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Omer123hussain: you made [ this] change. There is already a bunch of WP:UNSOURCED assertions in this article. More are not needed. I do not see how it is known where the diamonds were prepared for market. Also words like "cut", "polished" and "evaluated" are common words that do not need to be linked per MOS:OVERLINK. And the link for polish goes to Brilliant (diamond cut) and evaluated goes to Diamonds_as_an_investment#Pricing_formula. These are WP:EASTEREGG links and do not improve the article. Lastly Diamantaire is WP:JARGON for a diamond cutter, the more common name and should not be used. I am sorry to seem hypercritical, but what are you trying to achieve with this edit? Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 14:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I share the concerns of Richard-of-Earth. Further, we need WP:HISTRS sources here. Diamonds have attracted much scholarship, and peer reviewed scholarship should be summarized here for history, rather than questionable newspapers, blogs, etc. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 01:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Nolabob ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I have volunteered to review the Golconda diamonds article and intend to complete the review in a timely manner and in accord with the GA criteria. I have a generally favorable impression of the article. As a preliminary, I have evaluated the article with the ORES tool, which yielded a satisfactory result. See the detailed review below, which is updated as the review progresses and as further revisions to the article occur.
Nolabob (
talk)
21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is now much better and of suitable quality. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article now appears to comply with manual of style guidelines. However, see 1a above. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | These are well-done. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The article has a large number of in-line citations from reliable sources, which is definitely an attribute of this article. I have completed a spot check of the citations and concluded that these are suitable (now that the nominator has made appropriate corrections). Since I did find a couple of errors in a spot check, I encourage the nominator to conduct their own spot check of the citations. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I see no evidence for original research in the article. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's Copyvio Detector indicated no issues. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Scope of coverage is now satisfactory. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The focus of the article is appropriate. However, see comment in 3a. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The viewpoint is neutral. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article history indicates that it is stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The images in the article are all public domain from the Wikimedia Commons. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The nominator has satisfactorily addressed the concern about the images, and the infobox is sufficient as is. | |
7. Overall assessment. | The article now fully meets the GA criteria. |
Appreciate your keen sense of review and will do my best to make the recommended corrections by the reviewer.
@User:Omer123hussain Just to let you know, I much appreciate the excellent revisions you are making on this article. Nolabob ( talk) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@User:Omer123hussain Please address items 1a and 3a above. I believe this article is much improved. Once you address these two items, I can complete the review. Nolabob ( talk) 10:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I hope all the recommendations are fulfilled. :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 16:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Note that this review has been overturned after many problems with the article were found in the DYK review and afterwards. See the "GA removed" section at the talk page. Fram ( talk) 16:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
15:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
or
Improved to Good Article status by Omer123hussain ( talk). Self-nominated at 10:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Nomination would pass if the picture is removed. CSJJ104 ( talk) 13:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Although the Golconda mines have been depleted since 1830, they hold value as antique gemstones? Mines are not gemstones. And how can it possibly be that
Several literary legends were inspired by the Golconda diamonds and mines. These include such examples as the gem lore of the Priestly breastplate from the Old Testament-- you're saying the O.T. somehow references a mine in India? And later we have
Further the author describes that it was first cited in the 4th-century treatise of St Epiphanius (of Cyprus), as Gem lore, the Breastplate of the high priest of the Temple from Old Testament, and it was finally derived from Herodotus—430 BC-- the meaning of which utterly escapes me. What the hell is going on here? E Eng 19:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Computer reconstruction of the French Blue, previous form of the Hope diamondor something similar. – LordPeterII ( talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that, due to issues listed here and more issues I listed at the article talk page, I have removed the GA status from this article, as the GA review clearly wasn't up to standards. Accordingly, this DYK nom should be closed as the requirement of being a GA is no longer met. Fram ( talk) 08:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Nolabob:, I have removed GA status from this article, as it was far from the required level. I'll list some issues, other ones have already been raised at the DYK nomination by others.
" In the 1940s and 1950s, the De Beers advertising campaign "Diamonds are a girl's best friend", coupled with the accessorising of diamonds by elite society and celebrities, popularised Golconda diamonds (and diamonds generally) among society (standardising their use in engagement rings) and the fashion industry, which helped to boost the economic value of the diamond industry. "
Total nonsense. "Diamond's are a girl's best friend" was not the De Beers slogan ("A diamond is forever" was), and De Beers didn't promote the exhausted Indian Golconda diamonds, why would they? De Beers popularized diamonds, of course, but mainly their own, not a group of 100+ years old diamonds they had no financial interest in.
"During the ancient and medieval period, the Golconda diamonds were reserved for the Emperors and rulers and treasured as gemstones—believed to be a gift from God for mankind, and owning them was a sign of supremacy." Source? That diamonds were "treasured as gemstones" is superfluous of course, but the remainder needs a good source.
"Some diamonds are considered to have supernatural powers and were worn as amulet or talisman" Well, the source indicates that Indians in the 19th century thought that all jewellery and gemstones had these characteristics, not just "some diamonds".
rephrased the purpose of this sentence is to add the story of "Shah Jahan diamond".
"Golconda diamonds were popularized in the Middle East and the Western world by some of the 15th and 16th-century travelers and traders such as Niccolò de' Conti, Muhammad al-Idrisi, Marco Polo, and Jean-Baptiste Tavernier." Muhammad al-Idrisi is 12th century, Marco Polo is 13th century, and Tavernier is 17th century: only Conti is 15th, and none of them are 16th century...
"The Golconda diamonds are the world's most magnificent diamonds" is sourced to a 1817 source, perhaps we need something slightly more recent to make such claims?
"The Golconda diamonds are the world's most magnificent diamonds, and count less than two percent of the world’s natural diamonds." Nope, the source claims Golconda diamonds are often type IIa, and type IIa diamonds account for less than 2% of all diamonds. How many of the IIa actually come from Golconda is unclear. Almost all any way rephrased and
"making the legendary name "Golconda diamond" synonymous with Golconda itself"? Not clear what is meant here.
"In the 15th century Portuguese discovery of the sea route to India and 16th century Golconda Sultanate's new port at Machilipatnam had unfolded the region along with the Golconda diamond market for the European traders, it serves in the favor of both the trader's and the miner's economical values and ultimately affects the increase of Golconda diamond production." Long-winded, unclear sentence, things like "it serves in the favor of" and so on really don't belong in a GA.
" In the early 1900s private companies such as Cartier, De Beers and Van Cleef & Arpels created monopolies in their expertise in the jewellery trade-(particularly diamond), post World War II and post-Indian Independence, most of the cash-strapped governments and princely rulers came to an end—making them sell their jewels (that also consist of Golconda diamonds) which were later auctioned, and due to royal lineage, its mystical tales and advertising campaigns by these companies, the Golconda diamonds become the status reference globally making it exorbitant worth treasuring" Not really, no. This again references the De Beers ads, which had nothing to do with Golconda, and the sources also reference the "De Beers" diamond in the Patiala Necklace, which is not a Golconda diamond at all.
"According to Folklore some diamonds are alleged to be cursed, impart good luck to their owners, and possess Mystical powers while some diamonds can be worn as Talisman." Capitalization!
These are just some obvious issues, I haven't checked all text or all sources to find more issues. The article needs a thorough rewrite and doublecheck before a new GA review can be started. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I assume it's not a professional act of yours, without coming to a consensus you remove the GA tag, I am restoring it and coming to a consensus first on the talk page, and your concerns will be answered meanwhile. Furthermore, the article is under peer review so definitely it will expand and some errors may occur that is the purpose we need a GOCE review, but it doesn't mean it is a bad article. It takes a lot of effort for every article, you can't simply keep removing and deleting our hard work, in fact now I feel like you had taken something personally and tried to bully my work. :)-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 09:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
It would be better if you corrected and sourced things slowly, instead of making things worse by rushing. For example, you completely manged the "De Beers" sentence in the lead by removing just that part, it isn't really a sentence any longer now. And you tried sourcing "During the ancient and medieval period, the Golconda diamonds were reserved for the Emperors and rulers" to this, which says "The most beautiful stones discovered in Golconda were always reserved for kings and rulers ". This is not the same claim, and seems to match a mistake made throughout the article. While some of the Golconda diamonds are among the best, biggest, ... diamonds ever found, the article makes it sound as if all Golconda diamonds are these exceptional big whoppers, while most of them were small, typical, good but unexceptional diamonds used in jewellery by all kinds of people with some money: these diamonds were not "reserved for the Emperors and rulers" at all. Fram ( talk) 12:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An edit like this makes the article less factual, not better. Again, please slow down and make sure that what you edit is better, is sourced, is factual. You don't need to rush these things, but please try to get it right. Fram ( talk) 13:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
"obviously there will be errors"is really not a good attitude to have when writing content. There is no reason why content you added recently should have any errors in; certainly not errors as egregious as we have found here. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
There isn't any coverage of the geology of the diamonds: is it a kimberlite pipe, when did the eruption happen, did it have any special features that made it easier to mine than kimberlite pipes elsewhere which would explain why it was the one place mined in antiquity, etc. I don't know enough about this to write it but it would be good if someone did. David Bofinger ( talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)