Talk:Fiveling

Self citation disclosure

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)

Acknowledgements

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)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fiveling/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. 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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

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

Previous comments

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
• (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.
• 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
• (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
• 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.
• 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.