| Revision as of 19:22, 8 March 2006 editGolbez (talk | contribs)Administrators66,915 editsm Reverted edits by 142.32.208.238 (talk) to last version by Vsmith← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:06, 6 April 2006 edit undoArtman40 (talk | contribs)2,039 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| "Diamond is an excellent electrical insulator, but graphite is a conductor of electricity." | "Diamond is an excellent electrical insulator, but graphite is a conductor of electricity." | ||
| How many times must we be told that graphite conducts electricity? Might as well add that voltage applied to a mechanical pencil lead will cause it to go white-hot and throw sparks. I hope my criticism isn't too harsh, but someone with more experience than I should consider reorganizing this page. Thanks. | How many times must we be told that graphite conducts electricity? Might as well add that voltage applied to a mechanical pencil lead will cause it to go white-hot and throw sparks. I hope my criticism isn't too harsh, but someone with more experience than I should consider reorganizing this page. Thanks. | ||
| I can also confirm that it has a bitter taste. ] 21:26, 6 April 2006 (EET) | |||
| == Second paragraph too technical == | == Second paragraph too technical == | ||
Revision as of 18:06, 6 April 2006
"Other characteristics: thin flakes are flexible but inelastic, mineral can leave black marks on hands and paper, conducts electricity." This seems rather redundant, especially since it's mentioned at the top that graphite is a conductor. And the comparison between graphite and diamond may not be strictly necessary but it reinforces my point: "Diamond is an excellent electrical insulator, but graphite is a conductor of electricity." How many times must we be told that graphite conducts electricity? Might as well add that voltage applied to a mechanical pencil lead will cause it to go white-hot and throw sparks. I hope my criticism isn't too harsh, but someone with more experience than I should consider reorganizing this page. Thanks.
I can also confirm that it has a bitter taste. User:Artman40 21:26, 6 April 2006 (EET)
Second paragraph too technical
I think the second paragraph should be moved lower, or at least reworded to be a little less technical, some people might stop reading the article if they run into something that is way out of their league. Ideas? Danny Beardsley 08:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- OK - restructured the article, probably needs a bit of tweaking :-) Vsmith 11:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Crystal system?
The crystal system is listed as trigonal, yet on the hexagonal system page, graphite is listed as being of the hexagonal type. Is this just a case where trigonal is a subclassification of hexagonal, or which is correct? MichaelWest 12:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Done - trigonal --> hexagonal. Vsmith 13:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)