Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electron backscatter diffraction/archive1

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 October 2023 [1].

---

Electron backscatter diffraction

Nominator(s): FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) technique used to study the crystallographic structure of materials.EBSD is a versatile and powerful technique that can provide valuable insights into the microstructure and properties of a wide range of materials. Hence, it is widely used in materials science and engineering, geology, and biological research. It is a key tool for developing new materials and understanding their behaviour under different conditions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

First-time nomination

• Hi FuzzyMagma, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  ok. not sure what I need to do FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Very impressive. Some minor points to prove I read it (fixed one minor one myself):

• "Typically they can not be easily used in modern SEMs with multiple designated uses" Comma after "typically"; "can not" -> "cannot"

• MOS:STATEABBR: "In references and bibliographies, 2-letter United States Postal Service state abbreviations should not be used"

• fn 29: Page number?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I amended as requested, although point 2, I am not sure if you mean changing NY to New York or something more? FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would change it to "New York". There is no pressing need to save a few bits. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I did it earlier. Was just checking if you were pointing to something more. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

Didn't check the captions. I think that File:Overview of EBSD indexing procedure.jpg while freely licenced is a derivative work of another file here which is under a non-free licence. File:Indent Si.tif is from an arXiv - is it a reliable source for the file content? None of the images seems to have ALT text. The "Depth resolution" section may have some WP:SANDWICH issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• The authors are the same, Ben Britton and Angus Wilkinson, so I am not sure what rules apply here since the image is free from one source and not from the other one, under different journals but the same 1st and last authors
• The Arxiv image is typical, you can compare it to the one from here (same link you posted previously)
• Added ALT text, although mostly from the caption but replaced symbols and equations with words where needed
• Removed one of the images from the "Depth resolution" section

let me know what you think FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think ALT text works better when it shows what the image looks like, rather than saying what it represents. I've sent the file to the Commons deletion process; if they keep it, it will automatically stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

contested image removed and ALT text added FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sandbh

I read through the section called Pattern formation and collection.

I wasn’t able to follow the logical flow of the contents of this section, since the topic sentences for each paragraph don’t tell a story. Unfamilar terms are introduced (recall the trarget audience of WP is the general reader) without explanation.

For example, here are the topic sentences from the first subsection:

Setup geometry and pattern formation

"For electron backscattering diffraction microscopy, a flat polished crystalline specimen is usually placed inside the microscope chamber, tilted ~70° from Scanning electron microscope (SEM) original specimen positioning and 110° to the diffraction camera."

Grammatically, this sentence doesn’t make sense. And what does "original specimen positioning" mean?

"The phosphor screen is located within the specimen chamber of the SEM at an angle of approximately 90° to the pole piece."

Suddenly, the concept of a phosphor screen is introduced without any connection to the topic sentence of the previous paragraph.

"The systematically arranged Kikuchi bands, which have a range of intensity along their width, intersect around the centre of the regions of interest (ROI), describing the probed volume crystallography."

Ditto, re Kikuchi bands.

"If the system geometry is well described, it is possible to relate the bands present in the diffraction pattern to the underlying crystal and orientation of the material within the electron interaction volume."

This one introduces “system geometry”. Where does that come from?

"While this 'geometric' description related to the kinematic solution (using the Bragg condition) is very powerful and useful for orientation and texture analysis, it only describes the geometry of the crystalline lattice."

What is the kinematic solution? What is the Bragg condition? What is "orientation and texture analysis"?

The rest of the section appears to suffer from the same problems. Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• "For electron backscattering diffraction microscopy, a: fixed by separating to two sentences and replace "original" by "flat"
• "The phosphor screen is located ..: fixed by introducing the concept first and change the wording to "EBSD detector"
• "The systematically arranged Kikuchi bands..", Ditto, re Kikuchi bands.: this described in the sentence above it as it reads "The backscattered electrons form Kikuchi lines – having different intensities – on an electron-sensitive flat film/screen (commonly phosphor), gathered to form a Kikuchi band." no change
• {{tq|"If the system geometry is well described,": changed "system" to "setup"
• What is the kinematic solution? What is the Bragg condition? What is "orientation and texture analysis"?:
  • "What is the kinematic solution?": the whole sentence is moved to the "Pattern indexing" section. Wikilinked the word kinematic solution vs. the word dynamic later in the paragraph
  • "Bragg condition" is described and wikilinked earlier at "In this configuration, as these backscattered electrons leave the sample, they interact with the crystal's periodic atomic lattice planes and diffract according to Bragg's law at a range of scattering angles (θ_hkl)."
  • "orientation and texture analysis": that was descried in the sentence above it at "it is possible to relate the bands present in the diffraction pattern to the underlying crystal and crystallographic orientation". The word texture is wikilinked too

Commed and copyedited until the section of "strain measurement". FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I intend to give the next part of this article a look, likely towards the end of this week or over the weekend. Sandbh (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from RoySmith

• I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus about the alt texts. I've taken a shot a writing one that I think is more descriptive. I hope I have accurately represented how this is supposed to work; I'm particularly unsure if "disk of diffraction cones in which the specimen is embedded" is correct, so please double-check that. Also T346835 :-(
  • PS, I confess I chose this image because it was the easiest to write a coherent alt text for. Most of the others will be more difficult to describe in this fashion.
    • thanks for doing that, now I know how to do it and will fix other figures in due course
• Setup geometry and pattern formation
  • I (mostly) get why tilting the sample gives you more scattered electrons, but when I see "70 degrees", I want to know what's so special about that angle. Why did they pick 70 and not, for example, 45? It would be good to explain this.
    • The next sentence explains the logic of tilting, and there is a reference with detailed explanation and simulation of this at page 17 (the book is available for free). Also in the external links there is a link for software to simulate patterns while using different configuration. But the configuration that I used is vert typical and if you randomly open any of the paper that I have cited or any to be honest, they will use similar configuration as it reduce uncertainties when comparing results between different maps.
  • Likewise, why 20kV? I'm guessing it's some compromise between better resolution and blasting the sample to smithereens, but worth explaining.
    • see above. I will add that the text states that "The spatial resolution varies with angular width, interaction volume, etc".
  • The screen is coupled to a compact lens... It might be worth saying "compact optical lens" to differentiate it from what I assume are magnetic lenses which focus the electron beam. Or maybe handle that by saying "visible-light image" instead of just "image" later in the sentence?
  • removed the word "compact" as it indicate fibrous structure that is not there for CMOS cameras. I am not really not sure if the image is "visible-light image" or not. if you are confident, then please change it. As far as my experience with X-ray detectors, visible light has a different photon energy. The phosphor screen here is excited by the backscattered electrons.
• image caption: I assume gnomically projected refers to Gnomonic projection. If so, link it.
  • yes wikilinked
• EBSD detectors
  • Commercially available EBSD systems typically come with I would imagine this is rapidly developing technology, so {{as of}} would help here.
    • done
  • Link "binned" to Data binning? Oh, I see you link to pixel binning further down; maybe link to that instead, the first place it's used.
    • fixed
  • This enables very rapid and rich... Perhaps my personal hang-up, but delete "very"
    • done
• Sample preparation
  • or 2 hours (50 rpm speed and 5N force) and using 7.5 keV dual beam energy for 15 min, with a gun angle of 8° good for a method paper, but perhaps an excessive level of detail for this kind of article? I'm assuming the ion beam polishing is done with a Ion milling machine; if so, link to that.
    • removed excessive details and wikilinked Ion milling machine
• Depth resolution
  • Besides, even for a given definition drop "besides"
    • removed
  • Most reports on depth values do not mention a definition or present any rationale for the definition of depth resolution I'm not sure I get the point of this section. Who said "most reports"? Is there some survey paper which has evaluated the poor quality of the literature in not giving this data, or are you extrapolating (i.e. WP:OR) from the two reports you cite that "most" omit this data? In any case, how does it enhance the reader's understanding of Electron backscatter diffraction to know that the literature is deficient in reporting these things?
    • paraphrased, changed to "A recent comparison between reports on EBSD depth resolution, Koko et al indicated that ...". The Depth resolution is critical to know what exactly are mapping, as you are not mapping the immediate surface.
• Pattern indexing
  • File:Overview of EBSD indexing procedure.jpg is up for deletion, but even if it wasn't, the text in the image is barely readable on my large desktop monitor. I would imagine it's totally illegible on a small screen. I know image quality isn't a WP:FACR, but if you can't read the text, it's hard to see how it meets MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Not to mention MOS:TEXTASIMAGES.
    • I agree, removed
  • then four (four choose three) votes will be cast, I assume we're talking about Combination, so link to that. My understanding is that while this is often pronounced "n choose k", it's not usually written that way, so consider writing it as C(4,3) or some other standard way (and still link to Combination).
    • reworded and wikilnked to Combination
• As a FA newbie, I think I've gone as far as I can with this. This is clearly a highly technical subject. Looking at WP:TECHNICAL#Audience, I would put myself in the "knowledgeable reader" class. I have a good grounding in physics and understand the basics of crystallography, but to be honest, I'm having trouble getting through the article. Maybe that's unavoidable for a topic like this.
  • Thanks for your comments. Please let me know if my reply was adequate. I am still working on the alt description only 3 lefts. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Glad I could add some value. Us newbies need to stick together :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  done with ALT description :) FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Coord note

There are no supports and no recent edits on this 3-week old nomination, if there is no progress towards promotion in the next few days it may need to be archived for inactivity. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

With little further movement towards a consensus to promote, I am archiving this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe I can see there is one support for now. I wonder if waiting for @RoySmith or @Sandbh to finish their analysis will give more support FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild closed it so you would need to communicate with him (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild some clarity would help if you can and what I can do next. I am not sure if the lack of support is due to the nature of the article or something that I need to work on FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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