Talk:Multiangle light scattering

Emphasis
This article emphasizes a limited number of applications of this technique. Particle size distributions in the 0.1 to 100 micron range are also measured using this technique. As noted below, the particle size distribution for particles from nanometers to a few hundred nanometers are also often measured by related techniques that some readers may have difficulty distinguishing from one another. Either the title should be made narrower, or the article should be broadened to include other applications and perspectives from other instrument manufacturers or areas of scientific interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcgirton (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Forks
Then concern that this article, Multiangle light scattering (MALS), is a duplicate or fork of Static_Light_Scattering (SLS) is dully noted, but these two articles are actually quite distinct. Static (or Classical) Light Scattering is a physical phenomenon as is described in part in the article on SLS. By contrast MALS is a method of measurement that takes advantage of the phenomenon of SLS. To equate the two is somewhat like stating that a page on earthquakes is the same as a page on seismographs. There are areas common to both of them, however, they are both separate and distinct articles. MALS is particular in its measurement of scattered light in that it makes measurements at a discrete set of scattering angles. The MALS article focuses on the history and application of MALS measurements as well as that of the instrumentation. The cited SLS article is in some ways less an article on static light scattering than on the application of SLS to the particularly field of physical chemistry, and, more particularly, the various plots associated therewith. It does not cover instrumentation, the history of the technique or instrumentation, which are elements essential to any discussion of multiangle light scattering, which is first and foremost concerned with MEASUREMENT of scattered light intensity at discrete angular positions.

The article has been edited in order to better reflect these points and discussion of Static Light Scattering has been linked to the Static_Light_Scattering article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyatttech (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wyatttech: I note the change in the tone of the article away from the light scattering technique and towards the instrumentation. I remain unconvinced by the argument for the continued inclusion of this article. Since I see it is being actively edited (images are not even on the page yet), I will wait to see how it is redeveloped before beginning a deletion discussion. Presumably, the heavy bias towards Wyatt instruments will disappear in the next few days. In addition, I trust that the article will cover the development and history of goniometers used for multi-angle light scattering. Goniometers are also used for other types of measurements and, in those cases, have quite different designs. I am also a little puzzled by the connection between multi-angle light scattering instruments and differential light scattering instruments. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the existing article Multi-angle Light Scattering?
There is an existing article called "Multi-Angle Light Scattering" Multi-angle light scattering. So why is this article here with this title? What is the difference between this article title and the existing article title? LightScatteringGuy (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that that's best discussed below. Uncle G (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Title
There are a number of issues with the title of this article:
 * 1) Initials should not be included in titles. Initialisms can be mentioned in the leads, but adding them in the title makes the title more complicated than it should be.
 * 2) Two subjects ike this should not be in a title, unless the title is comparing them (which does not appear to be the case). It would be much better if a single title could be found to cover both, or if they could be split into two articles.

Comments welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth: The title initials are a problem and should be removed. How do I do this? It seems to be an "edit" rather than a move. LightScatteringGuy (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion
This article can be renamed (to Multiangle Light Scattering and Differential Light Scattering for example) using the ordinary rename button that everyone here has. One possibility is to simply rename it over the existing multi-angle light scattering article, deleting it and putting this in its place. An argument for that is that that, too, started out with a Wyatt Technologies focus, and is a stub. (On the other hand, it does do a far better job of introducing the subject, which this article doesn't do at all. On the gripping hand, if we write from scratch a good introduction here, we won't need the introduction from the other article.)  That's not something that everyone here can do. But either DJ Clayworth or I can rename over existing articles, if that's the consensus. I suggest that everyone discuss this here. Uncle G (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My vote is to rename this article into Multiangle light scattering or Multi-angle light scattering (caps are not used in scientific literature; dash doesn't matter - both ways return almost equal counts in Web of Science) and (compulsory) merge existing Multi-angle light scattering into this article. "Differential light scattering" can be mentioned here and expanded in a separate article, if necessary. Combining Multiangle light scattering and Differential light scattering in one article (title) is impractical. Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My vote is to rename this article into Multiangle light scattering and (compulsory) merge existing Multi-angle light scattering into this article. That is, I agree with Materialscientist, but tend towards no dash.  Yes, I tried to copy the wording of his vote.  If multiangle light scattering deserves an article in Wikipedia, it deserves one article, not two.  Disclosure:  I work for a Wyatt competitor, Brookhaven Instruments (http://www.bic.com).  We manufacture light scattering equipment including multiangle light scattering detectors (http://www.bic.com/BI-MwA.html).  I tried to revise the article so that the point of view was neutral.  The article then became something that seemed to be a duplicate of the existing static light scattering article, so I proposed deletion.  I am waiting a few days to see where the original author (Wyatttech) is going to take the article.    LightScatteringGuy (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

References and COI
I agree that the article arises from an potential conflict of interest. The greater problem to me as an outsider to the technique is that the referencing is hyperspecialized. Primary literature is only justified for major hitorical precedents or very recent, extraordinarily important papers. Usually primary citations reflect the editor's unwillingness or inability to provide more useful references. Primary literature invites further vanity citations and conflicts of interest. I recommend that the references be replaced by broader sources, e.g. reviews and monographs. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to most of the above
In anticipation (and prevention) of drastic moves I am copying my message to Wyatttech (talk) below. Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Three problems are eye catching:
 * The article name should be simplified. An obvious thing would be to remove abbreviations from the title, as appropriate in science, but I would go further, rename the article into "Multiangle light scattering" and merge Multi-angle light scattering into there (basically deleting Multi-angle light scattering). I argue that Differential Light Scattering is a minor part of this article and does not have to be in the title, but I would appreciate your opinion before making the moves myself.
 * The article refers to missing images. Please discuss possible problems with their upload. If those images can't be uploaded then the article should be rewritten, or otherwise it may even be deleted.
 * Commercial links like http://www.wyatt.com/solutions/hardware/ are not tolerated on WP and will be removed.

Best regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the placeholders in for the images. They were just raw text at the bottom of the article previously. I did this on the presumption that the article's creator was actually intending there to be actual figures accompanying the "Figure N." descriptions that xe wrote. &#9786; See above for discussion of the title. Uncle G (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Argument against deletion of this article:
It is surprising why so much effort has been expended to have this article deleted rather than improved. All known objections are addressed below, however, it should be noted that the scientific community has been much better served by those who have taken the initiative to edit the article rather than constantly nominate it for deletion:

1.	This page does not already exist in the form of Static_Light_Scattering. This argument was refuted in the original discussion regarding deletion. SLS is a physical phenomenon while MALS is a method by which SLS is measured, and in particular, a method by which SLS measurements may be used to characterize molecules and particles.

2.	While Multi-angle light scattering does address some issues, the present article is much more complete. As Materialscientist suggested, the Multi-angle Light Scattering article was a stub which has been expertly merged into this article.

3.	Lightscatteringguy’s point here (and in point 4) is very valid. Differential Light Scattering is an antiquated term (as addressed in the article) and should not have been included in the title. Editing by wikiusers has remedied this issue. The term itself within the article, however, is justified, as for a time it was a term of art and thus aids in the disambiguation between Dynamic Light Scattering and a MALS technique to which many references have been made in articles in the late 20th century.

4.	As mentioned in #3 above, the use of DLS as an acronym for the antiquated term Differential Light Scattering could be considered confusing. This is another proper argument for the editing of the article – not for its deletion.

5.	The article is not primarily commercial in nature. There amounts to one entire sentence in the article dedicated explicitly to Wyatt instrumentation. While other references are made, it is indisputable that Wyatt played an important part in the development and commercialization of MALS instrumentation and analysis. To say that references to the company which aided in the innovation and development of the technique amount to a commercial entry is like saying that references it International Business Machines are inappropriate in the discussion of photocopying. It should be added that many references to other institutions who also pioneered MALS instrumentation are made in the article, and if there are innovations not cited, for example more references to Brookhaven Instruments, the article should be edited to include them, rather than constantly nominating the article for deletion. It should be noted that the article has been properly edited to include relevant information by developers and manufacturers of competing instrumentation, which only adds to the value of the entry.

6.	Admittedly, the point about vanity references is not fully understood. All articles are originally penned by a single individual, and said individual has the experience of her/his own experience. If other references are valid, they should be added, but it cannot be held against the author that s/he has not read every article on a given subject and is instantly required to recall and reference them. Each citation is relevant and supports the discussion appropriately.

7.	The article has been edited, but is it truly the sole duty of the original author to improve wiki articles? Previous arguments have been addressed, and it had been thought, satisfactorily. However the efforts of a single wiki-user/editor to have this article deleted rather than improved has proven problematic. The issue of the figures is an unfortunate one. The originally intended images have been delayed (some indefinitely) as it is not yet certain which would meet the strict Wikipedia copyright requirements. References to the figures no longer appear in the article, but may be replaced if/when it is believed that the relevant figures are available and deemed to satisfy the wiki-requirements.

Other issues raised in this discussion:

The history section favors a single company: This is believed to be untrue, as addressed in section 5 above. Further, if there is history relevant to the development of MALS instrumentation and measurement, the article should be amended to include it. Dynamic Light Scattering is distinct from MALS, and the equivalency of DLS to “differential light scattering” no longer appears in the article. This article is original, however, it was penned initially for Wikipedia by an experienced patent agent, which may explain why Slawomir Bialy notices the similarity. It is believed that the above arguments address all of the outstanding issues relating to this article. These arguments, along with edits made to the article by other users, should put to rest the desire to have the entry deleted. It is therefore requested that the deletion consideration be removed. If it is still the belief of the objector that the article be removed, the decision will absolutely be appealed.

The deletion template has been deleted as we believe that our argument above settles the dispute in regards to Multiangle Light Scattering by addressing everyone's comments and concerns.

Too much focus on etymology
It seems that a great deal of focus is paid in this article to the etymology of MALS. The Background section reads more like a History section (perhaps the title should be changed?--and perhaps a bona fide technical background section should be added?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmkstarr (talk • contribs) 23:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete variable naming in theory section
Some of the variables in the theory section are not defined adequately and thus make it difficult for a reader to fully follow what is happening in the various equations. Further, the section that mentions that this technique can be use to calculate masses, should include equations informing the reader on how to make these calculations from base values/measurements. 76.144.23.123 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)