Talk:Diamond

Chemistry

Wow, is this a bad article. The lead states:"Because the arrangement of atoms in diamond is extremely rigid, few types of impurity can contaminate it (two exceptions are boron and nitrogen)." This is absolute rubbish. It isn't its "rigidity" that gives bulk diamond its impermeability (if that's what is meant by contamination). It is easy to "contaminate" a diamond CVD film with you name it. How big is the difference between contaminating a 1 inch cube (say) of pure iron vs. pure diamond? Not much. Ion implantation into (the near surface of) a diamond is also trivial. If the editors meant that NATURAL diamonds (on Earth) are typically quite pure, then SAY THAT! I suspect, but just an ignorant suspicion, that diamond must transition between impure high-carbon 'stuff' to the pure allotrope. I expect that at some point there's LOTS of contaminants in the nascent diamond. Aren't most natural diamonds black? What's that?? (the preceding is a digression, I'm ignorant on their natural occurrence.) There are so many FALSE statements in this article that it needs a total rewrite. There are many other bloopers but I don't have the patience to list them all. (For instance, did you know that hydrogen will leave an ash when burnt? No? Well, just read this article. When a diamond burns (in O2), any contaminants are left as ash. Ridiculous. (as is the assumption of complete combustion of the carbon) Another false claim is that diamond contains the most atoms per unit volume. (aside: at first, I thought the editor meant per unit cell volume!, not sure why s/he used the word "unit" since it doesn't add clarity (but it is not wrong)). Estimates of hydrogen density in the sun's core is ~10,000 kg/m^3, and without qualifying pressure and temperature the claim is likely false. I could go on...)40.142.183.146 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget that vinyl will wear down a diamond!! 203.221.187.176 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Does the "rigidity" come from repulsion between a given carbon atom and its 12 2nd nearest neighbors? Rigid sphere models have these atoms approximately touching.

The article states "At room temperature, diamonds do not react with any chemical reagents including strong acids and bases." Perhaps this part of the article is old-fashioned. Stronger reagents are often studied today. Does diamond dust react with liquid chlorine trifluoride? What about triflic acid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:5900:534:1EB7:FFE1:F987:FB30 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Too low

See "Mining companies' expenses average 40 to 60 US dollars per carat for natural colorless diamonds, ". This seems to be too low. It might be vandalism. 93.97.135.187 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not, diamonds are just a scam SecretCoder123 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2026

Change the theoretically predicted phase diagram of carbon to the theoretically predicted phase diagram of carbon, from 1989 and updated with newer work found in the wikipedia page for carbon. SecretCoder123 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Day Creature (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

TFA consideration

Hello talk page watchers, it has been a long time since this article was chosen as today's featured article, so I am considering this for a re-run. When skimming through the article, I noticed some uncited text, and I think the article could use a copy-edit due to the addition of new prose since it was promoted. Is anyone interested in taking a look so that the article is ready to run again? Are there other concerns that should be resolved before this runs at TFA? Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• @UndercoverClassicist: With this edit you mentioned how the article has uncited text at the end of the article. Is this enough of a concern that it should be noticed at WP:FARGIVEN to see if editors are interested in addressing concerns? My thoughts are that if it isn't in shape to run on the main page, then it doesn't fulfil the FA criteria anymore. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd put it the other way around: it doesn't fit the FA criteria as it stands (though admittedly the breach would not be difficult to fix), and that is why it should not be on the MP until it does. Strictly speaking, it would be reasonable to open an FAR process on that basis too, but this seems the more immediate problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• @UndercoverClassicist: I pulled this from the draft August TFA list. I'm going to add this to WP:FARGIVEN to see if it gets any traction when listed there. While the problems might be easy to fix, it really is a matter of editor time and willingness to do so: hopefully drawing attention to the article in various places will help find an editor who fixes these concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• @UndercoverClassicist: I noticed that there haven't been any edits to the article since this was posted. Would you like to post this to WP:FAR to see if anyone is interested in addressing concerns? Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)