Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diamond

Diamond

Partial self-nomination. This article spectacularly failed an earlier nomination (archived) about six weeks ago. Since then, I and others (notably User:Hadal and User:Jasper) have tirelessly whipped this article and its sub-articles into shape. This includes a massive, total rewrite of the article as well as the creation of eight sub-articles, two sub-lists, and filling in of numerous red links on everything from Gemological Institute of America to Argyle diamond mine. In my truly humble opinion, this article is a great overview of the topic, discusses all important topics while leaving details and minutiae to the sub-articles, and is interesting, well written and well organized. In short, I believe this article does its topic justice. I'm quite proud of it. Thank you in advance for your comments. - Bryan is Bantman 01:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Definite support. I've been watching this one improve and waiting for its nomination here. Great work. - Taxman 02:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't the sections on "Diamond cut" and "Diamond cutting" be merged or at least be placed closer together? Also, isn't there some sort of standard infobox for gemstones? Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Diamond cutting" is a subsection (TOC 2.4.3) of the "Diamond cut" section (TOC 2.4). The infobox is not exactly standard (only on about 10% of the articles in the gemstones category [1]), but is located in the subarticle material properties of diamond. - Bryan is Bantman 16:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Comments: it seems the intro is a bit over-long and could use some clipping; at least two users (including me) had a difficult time finding the properties - the subpage link is there but easy to miss - maybe somehow make that more prominent. I've tweaked the Natural history section a bit and will probably do a bit more - see some possible fixes that need checking (nothing glaringly major - my interests are from the mineralogy/geology end). Over all a very good article and obviously the result of a lot of work. -Vsmith 04:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some fool (OK, I'm pretty sure it was me) forgot to indent the Main article: material properties of diamond line; I've fixed it so it should be easier to see now. (I should point out that that article, along with three other sub-articles - diamond cut, diamond simulants, and diamond enhancement, are perhaps FA quality themselves.) Re: the intro, it was certainly a struggle to get it as short as it is now; what do you think we can trim out of it? I tried to touch on each of the most major points, and I don't think it's overly long given the length of the article. Any help on the natural history section would be great; thanks for the changes you've made already. - Bryan is Bantman 17:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It would be nice with an image of an uncut diamond. Thue | talk 10:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. :) Granted, it's not the best image, but it's the only sizable PD example I could find. (It's incredibly difficult to procure a rough diamond that's above a few millimetres in size.) -- Hadal 13:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great picture - and a great addition to the article! Vsmith 15:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice image; thanks :). Thue | talk 16:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support Holy cow. I would recommend though moving the natural history section to after the material propeties but before all the gemological/industry stuff. Fawcett5 13:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree w/ Fawcett5. It would make the article flow better. Although I prefer my cows w/out holes :-) Vsmith 15:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. (No cows were harmed in the editing of this article.) - Bryan is Bantman 17:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't even have one tasty burger or steak in the whole time you've been working on this article? - Taxman 14:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support The article is comprehensive and well-organized and has spawned many high-quality subarticles as it has avoided becoming too long. Vengeful Cynic 20:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Surport tooto 00:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object until inline external links are removed or cited at bottom, rather than in the text. Neutrality^talk 18:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Done: inline external links are now also cited at bottom. - Bryan is Bantman 21:08, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)