Talk:Liquid crystal/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hello, I am reviewing this. My first impressions are good, it is well written; terse, and is well referenced. More to come soon. End of yarn (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My first complaint is the history section, it just isn't as well written as it could be. The first few sentences are confusing End of yarn (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you. I have fixed some of that and shall wait for more detailed comments. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just a note about doing GA reviews. The review is done on the review page and copied (transcluded) here. Just click the link in the GA nominee box at the top of this page and follow the instructions to create the page and the copy. Step by step instructions for the mechanics of doing a GA review can be found at the Good Article Nominations page. And it has links to info on guidelines for passing, etc. Diderot&#39;s dreams (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have copied/transcluded the page. End of yarn (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A history of liquid crystals without Daniel Vorländer is missing a major point.
 * The link to Nematic linkes back to liquid crystal and the URL of the university of hamburg is dead.--Stone (talk)
 * References 32 through 34 are in a different format than the rest of your references. Please include author, publisher, and publishing year information for those references.  Thegreatdr (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for all comments. However, the paper still needs someone who would properly lead the GA review process. Please do so. NIMSoffice (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

has not been active since 2 May: See also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive532. Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review restarted
It seems that this review has stalled so I am picking it up. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

I find no reason to quick fail this, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The article is mostly well written, I have made some copy-edits throughout for clarity, please check that I have not distorted the meaning. I will highlight the following exceptions where the meaning is unclear.
 * History After his accidental discovery, Reinitzer disappeared from the stage. Why? How? This I think needs some explanation/clarification. ...his microscope possessed a hot stage... I think I know what this means, but it needs explanation.  ...he had his article ready for submission to the Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie. Was it well received? was it published? From the beginning of 20th century, till his retirement in 1935, German chemist Daniel Vorländer... This is an abrupt transition from the previous paragraph, I think. For more details on the history of liquid crystals see the History of Liquid Crystals website. Not good to place a bare html reference in the text. Consider re-wording, perhaps use a wikilink.  An illustrative introduction into liquid crystals, their history and unique physical properties is available on Nobelprize.org. Agian, an inline citation is preferable. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Liquid crystal phases OK, the prose is a little dense at times, but understandable. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Biological liquid crystals OK Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pattern formation in liquid crystals OK Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Theoretical treatment of liquid crystals Microscopic theoretical treatment of fluid phases can become quite involved,  involved is not the right word here. Complicated?  As we already saw above,... Not encyclopaediac, sounds like a lecture.
 * Effect of chirality OK Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Applications of liquid crystals It is also worth noting that many common fluids are in fact liquid crystals. Soap, for instance, is a liquid crystal, and forms a variety of LC phases depending on its concentration in water. Any other examples. What about glass, I believe that that may be considered as a liquid crystal? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead The lead should summarize the article, no mention of applications, consider slight expansion. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall This article is very thorough but hard going for many readers. I studied Physics and Chemistry at secondary school so I think I understood it. I will ask for a second opinion re its comprehensibility by the "average" reader. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed all the above points. Little is known about Reinitzer to say why did he abandon LC research. Lead is expanded and includes common LC examples. LCs require relatively long molecules, which are lacking in glass. Materialscientist (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I have copy edited the lead slightly Jezhotwells (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * b (MoS):
 * The article is well structured, complies sufficiently with MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * The article is well referenced, some references require subscriptions but are accessible via libraries, I assume good faith for print references. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * References are to reliable sources as far as I can ascertain. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Broad in scope. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * and focused. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * no evidence of edit-warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * suitably tagged and with correct licensing. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * good explanatory captions. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am going to ask for a second opinion from someone with a scientific background. On hold whilst prose concerns are dealt with. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it, I am now happy to pass this to GA status. There is still considerable room for improvement in the writing style. It is difficult to find the right balance between accuracy and terminology and "dumbing down" when writing about a science topic. I think that the popular science writings of Dawkins, Asimov et al are the models that should be looked to.  Congratulations on the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to ask for a second opinion from someone with a scientific background. On hold whilst prose concerns are dealt with. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it, I am now happy to pass this to GA status. There is still considerable room for improvement in the writing style. It is difficult to find the right balance between accuracy and terminology and "dumbing down" when writing about a science topic. I think that the popular science writings of Dawkins, Asimov et al are the models that should be looked to.  Congratulations on the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Drive by comments
I don't have much time now, to review the whole article thoroughly. Hopefully I will be able to find some time soon. In quickly reading the first half though, I do have a few comments that I hope will help improve the article. I have not found anything really large; most are style issue.


 * History section in particular is too colloquial in tone and not encyclopedic enough. The GA reviewer mentioned a number of problems with that above that are largely due to that tone; in striving for color the article begs the question.


 * The captions of the figures are often not helpful. MBBA?, Transition smectic-nematic? (Which is which? is the right half smectic? or are the dark regions?)  One figure does not have a caption at all.


 * The article needs copy-editing, still. It probably is not a show stopper.  It needs to be tightened, though.


 * Personally, I don't like the (admittedly pretty looking) diagrams of the ordering for the nematic, chiral nematic and smectic C* phases. The plots looked good but were very easy to misinterpret.  If you know what to look for you can see it, but if you don't it is too easy to see something that is not there.  For example in the nematic phase it looked to me that all of the 'mesogens' were ordered up and down in a plane like the smectic phase.  The smectic phase was well done, but the other two were hard to visualize for me.  Those plots may benefit by being replace by simpler (less pretty) plots similar to the pitch plot (that has no caption).


 * I prefer links and  to various sections that have subarticles such as lyotropic liquid crystal, thermotropic, biaxial nematic, columnar phase
 * Some small petty annoyances for me.
 * "The rigid part of a liquid crystal molecule is called a mesogen." The placement of this sentence interferes with the discussion of the difference between the thermotropic and lyotropic phases and is not needed at least in the lede.  I would be happy to remove all instances of that term.  As an undergraduate, I went to quite a few LC seminars, and I don't remember anyone using that term.  The speakers were quite content with saying 'the smectic phase is ordered like this..'  Experts in the field may disagree, though.
 * whilst?
 * 'fruit-fly' of LC? Eventually I figured out that this may be an analogy to how biologists like studying the fruit-fly, but my first reaction was 'huh? does that mean it is attracted to honey?'
 * Overall I am impressed with the first half at least. I hope this helps.  TStein (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I was glad to read you comments and see a keen eye for blunders I missed. I will brush up the writing (much of it is not by myself). The problem here is my writing is too dry and specific for most WP readers. Captions are fixed. One was invisible because of forgotten "thumb" tag. Diagrams are a hard part, as I don't have enough time to redraw them (again, they are a collection by various contributors). I removed all but one "mesogens". Indeed, the term is scary and unnecessary here, but strictly speaking, you have to call it something, and my replacement "LC molecule" is incorrect. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)