# Talk:Surface diffusion

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of December 5, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, but the lead should be longer. Please, add the second paragraph.
2. Factually accurate?: Yes
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
4. Neutral point of view?: No problem
5. Article stability? Stable
6. Images?: Ok
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far.— Ruslik (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get the second paragraph in at some point today. Runningamok19 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant something more than two sentences. Please, make lead consist of two really long paragraphs. Ruslik (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added a bit more to the first paragraph, not sure if it's what you are looking for. If I think of more useful, concise, additions I can make I will do so. Runningamok19 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now it looks much better. Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts about what hadn't been mentioned was some of "the obvious". e.g., involves solids. (you made the point about 10% of mpoint but not sure this is obvious for new readers in the intro. Are they always crystals/metals? Involves differing atoms? (or how can you see the diffusion). Applies to CVD and PVD? Does this read back to "old" technologies like nitriding? Just some thoughts Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't write this:

  
    
      
        Γ
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Gamma \,}
  
 << 
  
    
      
        ν
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle \nu \,}
  

Instead write this:

  
    
      
        Γ
        ≪
        ν
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Gamma \ll \nu \,}
  

Don't write this:

  
    
      
        <
        Δ
        
          r
          
            2
          
        
        >
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle <\Delta r^{2}>\,}
  

Instead write this:

  
    
      
        ⟨
        Δ
        
          r
          
            2
          
        
        ⟩
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle \Delta r^{2}\rangle \,}
  

I've fixed these in the article.  All such cleanups should be finished before this is declared a Good Article. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to see how I could improve the article. Difficult! However the diagram below uses a\ modified imagemap to label the illustration. Any advice? This I think also labels the start position more clearly. Move your cursor over the diagram... Victuallers (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The source for an imagemap based on this diagram is stored here Victuallers 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That might be a little over-crowded - it'd be easier if the balls in the end positions were partially transparent. Adam Cuerden talk 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam ... didn't quite understand your comment. I'm guessing you saw this as a new diagram. In fact the diagram is only a modification/enhancement and I think had been added before your comment. If you run your cursor over the picture then you will see. Hope I have not misunderstood. Victuallers (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I know it's not new, but I still think it'd be a bit clearer if the starting point wasn't the same for five different processes - it gets very crowded, and can be hard to follow. Not one of your best works, I fear. Adam Cuerden talk 20:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, maybe if you fixed the arrow for 2, so it wasn't mostly covered, that might help. They already are slightly transparent, but perhaps could be a little moreAdam Cuerden talk 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well thrilled that you think that this one of "my best works" but no. I have only added the imagemap to Runningamok19 artwork. I agree that the weakish point of the diag is the common starting point but thats why I add the imagemap as its a difficult concept to do in one static diagram. Hopefully is improved. Victuallers (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree the image could use a little work.  Will upload an improved version tomorrow. Runningamok19 (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How does the new image look? Runningamok19 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Pleased to see you are using the tool (I guess). Suggest that green are called 1 and 2 again and the rebound is also 1. See what Adam thinks. Oh and major contratulations on the GA. I'm jealous! Victuallers (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! For the time being, I am going to add the image as-is since it is at least somewhat of an improvement. Runningamok19 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)