Talk:Scanning probe microscopy

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

I think that NSOM falls under optical microscopy, not scanning probe. I believe it is the most powerful optical technique known, but it is truly optical. Srnec 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that SEM (and FESEM) are also scanning probe microscopies. The probe being the electron beam. Lateralis 10:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NSOM might fall under either category, but it is more likely to be scanning probe. Although it uses light, it does not uses lenses, as proper optical microscope should. Image is gathered one point at time. SEM is scanning, but not scanning probe microscope (although also depends on definition). Probe seems to be implied to be hard, material piece. -Yyy 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tateburton4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific articles are held to a much lower standard than other articles, for citations. I'm not going to mark every statement that needs a citation, but wanted to point this out and flag the overall article accordingly.TechnoTalk (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! The scientific citation guidelines are actually more specific than those for regular articles, but since expertise is needed to understand them I guess there's a smaller population of editors able to improve scientific articles. Any help you can provide, including just tagging statements that need citations, is appreciated! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, Template:Refimprove science may be of use.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]