Talk:Crystal growth

Needs BIG Improvements

The article in general is very bad (I do my PhD in crystallization) and needs several sections added: - a simple description what crystal growth is and what causes it (links to other articles already existing) - a more detailed description on HOW a crystal grows (growth mechanisms)

As soon as there is some time open in my schedule, I will work on this.Necmon (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Casual observer here: I agree completely, and the first introductory paragraph of Mechanisms of growth really needs to be cleaned up. It's not a good introduction at all - it's short and dense, very technical, a bit random, and only mentions vapor growth. It seems like it was written in haste. Not to mention the last sentence ends with a colon. :) This article needs help, but I'm inexperienced in editing Wikipedia even though I have some background in Crystal growth. I'd be willing to help, if needed. 2601:88:8100:7443:4DBD:72A7:ABE2:723B (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Needs Headings

The article needs headings. I am not sure where they would go-just throwing this out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.187.194 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Mergers

• There a quite a few articles on aspects of crystals and Crystallization. I wonder to what degree some of these articles could be merged. For example, It seems that crystal growth is quite closely related to Crystallization (engineering aspects).

See also:

Crystal

Crystal structure

Crystallite

Crystallization

Crystal growth

Fractional crystallization

Recrystallization

Seed crystal

Single crystal

and articles cited therein also!

I suspect it would take a brave person to try and untangle/merge these articles !! -- Quantockgoblin 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that this article is now mainly about nucleation, which is a related but completely different process. Josq (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

MAIN MERGE

Reinforcing the suggestion to merge, part with Crystal growth and part with Crystallization (engineering aspects):

1. Work with samples and summaries at talk pages for discuss new structure and appends at each main article;
2. Work migrating and merging some content.

If this article is improved, cleaned (there are a lot of non-encyclopedic details and repeated content between articles), and make understandable to non-experts, it not need to merge with others: is a in-deep article to the "(only) crystal growth" subject.

--Krauss (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They need to add more.

It's too short. If someone, like me, for example, was looking for info on crystals and they came here, they would want more info on crystals. Ptara517 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gallery cleanup

It would be helpful to add captions to the images based on the image titles in the code of the edit window. I'll ask someone how to do that. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Difference?

How is this topic different from grain growth? If there is little difference, perhaps they should be merged. Wizard191 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Research included in Figures

While I believe the SEM of the silver growing is very interesting in an academic perspective, I wonder if this constitutes original research. Also I am not sure how useful the caption is in describing the interesting features such as nucleation sites and lattice steps. Darkwraith (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this article adequate?

What portion of the keywords that categorize the papers in The Journal of Crystal Growth published by Elsevier does this article cover? Is this sufficient for an article that a reader might think gives an indication of what someone working on "crystal growth" might be studying now, or studied in the past? For example, should the role of growing large single crystals in the development of infra-red and heat detecting semiconductor sensors be mentioned? Should mention be made of mathematical theories for rate of crystal growth? Should mention be made of relevance to space studies? And so on. Adding a long list of "see also"s without explaining why they should be seen is a cop-out. I think that one of the worst dangers of WP is the use of a phrase as the title of an article that deals with just one or two items that fall within it. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)