Talk:X-ray crystallography

message: Bravi, all contributing editors here, a very nicely done article! I rarely am so impressed by our science articles; this one is very well done.  Thank you all.
I would like to suggest, only, that the section "Early organic and small biological molecules" have two small matters receive attention. First, the string of references for fatty acid structures needs to be checked, and even if all fully relevant, the list of citations here seems a bit more than necessary (relative to other target molecules).  Can a secondary (review) source not be found to replace, that cites this list (given the relevant WPs encouraging secondary over primary sources)? Perhaps winnowing it to the review, and the first, best, or most pedagogically helpful citation as a second ref. is the way to go.
Second, can we find a couple newer citations, to describe, to cap off the section?  The pre-eminence of structural chemistry in advancing organometallic chemistry suggests adding one further sentence and review citation on structural chemistry in OM, maybe with a molecule name and picture. There, look at Arny Rheingold (http://www-chem.ucsd.edu/faculty/profiles/rheingold_arnold_l.html), who was for many years a go-to guy to get inorganic and OM structures performed, which will bring you into that literature.  Maybe an Accounts article on one family of OM compounds, like carbenes (leading readers to metathesis, etc.), where structure was key to reactivity?  Or perhaps chiral Lewis acid complexes important in synthesis? Then, for a second, what most momentous/small molecule structure has been solved of late?  Perhaps a complex natural product whose structure was clarified/corrected by X-ray?  Something to bring this close to, if not to, the new millennium.
Best wishes.  These suggestions are only to make a small part more current.  By the way, not a crystallographer or OM chemist, an organic/medicinal chemist that uses structure data Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Leprof 7272, cross-read your comment. Why not doing it...? Comment was from 2013, did you review the article in mean-time? Article looks impressive, so? KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos to site editors, and Comment on one section 

message: Substituted at 10:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hi folks, it would be great if some content could be added on Laue oscillations in this article. I am a student pursuing a Master's in Materials Physics, and when I was studying XRD and XRR, I noticed that Laue oscillations quite commonly manifest in data when performing XRD experiments, however there is no content about it in this article. What do yall think? - Blue.painting (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Blue.painting, Ok, I Wikipedian think, why not go ahead and add it if missing? Your comment is from 2019, did you graduate in meantime? Just find some articles across Elsevier etc. and references it, no objections but think what exactly you want to say in an encyclopedic way for a general audience. I studied sciences. What you "noticed" is different from a scientific fact, please consider it. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laue oscillations 

message: Kudos, everyone editing this article! Am a scientific person. I didn't review it (just surfing), but first glance says "I can see it [quality]". 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos! 

message: Well summary not about x-ray utilizations in state of matter web and cubic crystalline structure 41.79.122.226 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  General chemistry 1 

message: This article would benefit from following summary style, including automatic excerpting of secondary articles via template:excerpt. fgnievinski (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: I think the GA reassessment was generous:
* It is way too long.
* The order of sections needs revision. For instance put all the scattering theory parts together, currently there is duplication.
* Put all relevant history parts together
* Remove unverified parts which are not central. For instance there is a paragraph on catalysts without citations. While xrd is used, it is not so key.
* Masses of citations needed. Remember, every statement needs validation.
* There is a lot of loose language which should be tightened.
It seems that people have tacked things on without enough attention to the larger picture. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long, too chaotic 

message: The last sentence of Thomson scattering links this page with an unreferenced claim: "X-ray crystallography is based on Thomson scattering.". Maybe someone here has a reference handy that could be added?  Even better would be another sentence explaining why. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-ray crystallography is based on Thomson scattering. 

message: The section on #Contributions of women to x-ray crystallography came originally from Crystallography. It seems more appropriate here, although parts (e.g. international tables) could be in both. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Women in x-ray crystallography moved from [[Crystallography]]