Wikipedia:Featured article review/Synthetic diamond/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [1].

Synthetic diamond

Notified: User talk:Materialscientist, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, article talk 14 Jan and 8 Feb

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged since June 2019, with no action taken to remedy the issues. Besides the issues mentioned, I suspect an update is overdue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PauloDiCapistrano has tagged the article, without any explanation on the talk page and without notifying me. This would be a shortcut to a quick and silent delisting, but not to improving the article. The concerns are minor (there were very few updates in the field in the past decade) and unsubstantiated. I will address them anyway. Please bear with my slow pace these weeks due to the coronavirus-related obstacles. Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, glad you are on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the tags. There was never a problem with secondary sourcing of this article - sources were always there, fully supporting the content, just needed to be inlined more frequently over the text. Materialscientist (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist I will go through in the next day or so; did you check if anything needed updating? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall any significant news in the (stagnating) science and history of the topic. A few updates on gem use had been added before this FAR. I will have another look though. Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist, my apologies for the delay; back now. I see you have corrected most of the issues, but I have a few queries/comments:

Are all of those "See also" necessary? Since an FA is presumed to be comprehensive, one expects most See alsos to be linked into the article.
Ditto for WP:EL; do those links contain information that can't be/hasn't been mentioned in the article?
Several errors categories (see the bottom of page) are still populated-- those are what caused this article to pop up on the FAs with errors list, and ideally, we should deal with them wherever possible. Particularly, the errors cats reveal several pieces of text that might need attention:

This technique requires relatively simple equipment and procedures, but it has only been reported by two research groups, and had no industrial use {{As of|2012|lc=on}}.
{{As of|2017|01|post=,}} synthetic diamonds sold as jewelry were typically selling for 15–20% less than natural equivalents, and the relative price was expected to decline further as production economics improve.

I am unsure how to address the CS1 errors, but they will cause this article to continue to appear on the errors list.
On a quick glance, I see incomplete citations here-- please doublecheck thoughout, as I did not do a thorough check:

"16 CFR Part 23: Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries: Adoption of Revised Guides". July 24, 2018. (Missing publisher and accessdate)
Ditto here, I didn't check throughout: "FTC Approves Final Revisions to Jewelry Guides". July 24, 2018.

Could you juggle, reduce size, or somehow address the three images beginning with the "High pressure, high temperature" section, to avoid MOS:SANDWICH?
I've fixed all the above issues. Images are set correctly and appear fine on my laptops, but I don't have access to a wide screen, and will hardly have in the coming weeks. Any experienced editor who sees a problem with text jamming, please adjust image placement at will. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Materialscientist; unless someone else has issues, I am good to Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If DrKay could also have a look, we should be close to being able to close this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC. I see no obvious problems. Thanks for the work done. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.