The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
This is the second FA nomination of Synthetic diamond. Previous attempt in May-June this year ended by time-out, without a clear conclusion. After that I and a previous referee Cryptic C62 have continued the review and here is the result for your consideration. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I care nought that "scientific literature endorses" a particularly ugly word, when a plain one a third as long is available and means the same thing. Scientific literature, whatever or whoever that is, also endorses the total use of the passive voice. We know better here. I suggest that "used" be substituted. Tony (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry to be so negative. Thank you.—
RJH (
talk)
15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment There's still one disambiguation link. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
This is the second FA nomination of Synthetic diamond. Previous attempt in May-June this year ended by time-out, without a clear conclusion. After that I and a previous referee Cryptic C62 have continued the review and here is the result for your consideration. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I care nought that "scientific literature endorses" a particularly ugly word, when a plain one a third as long is available and means the same thing. Scientific literature, whatever or whoever that is, also endorses the total use of the passive voice. We know better here. I suggest that "used" be substituted. Tony (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry to be so negative. Thank you.—
RJH (
talk)
15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment There's still one disambiguation link. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply