Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diamond/archive1

Diamond

A great and well written overview of a fascinating subject including in one place information I could not find collected together elsewhere. Particularly strong on physical properties including the popular gem cuts. History, some commercial issues, trivia such as famous cutters and stones. In my opinion this featured article candidate, for once, truly shows off Wikipedia at its best. Paul Beardsell 21:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is off to a good start, but it has some formatting issues to deal with first.
  1. In some sections, the text is written is a format that suggests it had been written one sentence at a time (the Cut section in particular).
  2. There are tons of external links, but no real references.
  3. I would like to see a mention of so-called "blood diamonds".

– ClockworkSoul 22:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 1) It does not cite its sources, a basic featured article requirement. Please check the criteria before nominating. 2) Multiple one and two sentence paragraphs break up the flow of the text too much. Either expand those into fully developed ideas or merge them in with related material. 3) The lead section is too short. Typically it is 2-3 paragraphs twice the size of that one. It should summarize all important facets of the topic. It should also try to avoid overly technical terms at first, and gently work them in and explain them in context. 4) Given the value and size of the world diamond market (Which is? This article doesn't say.), the issue of high quality, large synthetic diamonds should be covered much more thoroughly. They have the potential to undermine a very valuable market. 5) No mention of round brillian cut with even more facets than the standard as is increasingly popular. Many jewelry stores in the US market these as their own signature cuts. 6) The organization is a bit odd. Why are the cut color and clarity listed in the industry section. And no mention of carat almost at all by the way. Carat increase exponentially increases price. That could be noted. Clarity enhancements are covered, but aren't there some color enhancements too? Color is covered in two places, they should be combined, I'd think. I suppose that's enough for now. - Taxman 23:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, ditto above comments. --Oldak Quill 23:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The disorganization of this article, and resulting lack of flow, is epic. It reads poorly and contains many grammatical, structural, and spelling errors. It leaves out large topics (ex. production and supply chain information) and treats others poorly (ex. jumps into describing type Ia, Ib, II diamonds without really explaining what distinguishes the types). Could be a great article, and is more likely to be one by summarizing briefly separate articles on the large number of relevant topics. There are also many (probably unintentional) POV statements, which are likely the result of various marketing campaigns' influences on peoples' understanding, but nonetheless need to be rooted out ruthlessly. In short, I must disagree with the nominator and suggest instead that this article shows off the worst of what can happen in the collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia that we all know and love — lots of unsourced facts with no unification into a readable article. Let's see if we can fix it, shall we? Bantman 00:15, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, for the reasons stated above. Jeronimo 14:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support (although as proposer my vote should not be counted twice) on the basis that although the article does not meet all the FAC guidelines it seems to do so at least as well as several other recently featured articles. E.g. Johannesburg. Paul Beardsell 21:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• So your argument is that your article is as good as an article that you strenuously objected to as being of too poor quality to be a FA? Interesting. How about instead focus on handling the objections for this article, and make it a great one. - Taxman 22:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)