Talk:Research in lithium-ion batteries

Electrodes organisation
I question the organization of the article and made some comments here. Please leave your feedback. Thanks for the additions,--Wyn.junior (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I fixed it. Lfstevens (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire article should either be chart or paragraphs. I am leaning towards paragraphs become of the volume of info. Why are you grouping them with positive and negative electrodes? There is hardly any info on Wikipedia about pos and neg electrodes.....strange. Thanks for the edits. I'm going to keep at this article.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer a table to simplify comparisons and using text for things that don't fit the table. I split the electrodes because the research trajectories are quite different for each. Others are welcome to join the conversation. Lfstevens (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, an electrode is composed of the anode and cathode. There isn't much information about a positive electrode and a negative electrode.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. A battery cell has two electrodes. One is the anode and the other the cathode. Lfstevens (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Is one of them the pos and the other the neg electrode?--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct!
 * Ok. Can we use anode and cathode instead?--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, but others may. Lfstevens (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see pos and neg electrodes be used in the articles I've been reading and writing about. Anode and cathode it is.--Wyn.junior (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Breakthrough
It take one of the tech giants to bring in the new technology before it is trusted. Once of them brings it in, it is considered a mainstream breakthrough.--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletions
Several items have gone from the table in recent days without explanation. What's up with that? Lfstevens (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Lacking references. Repost if you believe the references are ok.--Wyn.junior (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Chart
--Wyn.junior (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Each row has a source. What is the issue? Lfstevens (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the source is saying. Not plane English.--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the scientific sources are decent papers, so not sure if there is anything that should be changed. I do question, however, how this selection was made. It's not as if these are particularly interesting or novel papers compared to a lot of other literature out there. Ischariot ucl (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources not scientific
The article uses mostly sources from popular media that take over every hopeful announcement without checking. Additional information about the downsides of each technology would be welcome. Sdk16420 (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Needs rewrite
This page is blurb after blurb summarizing a churnalism report based on a press release from a university or other research institution.

This is pretty much the definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Our poor readers..

The page should be based on reviews and summarize trends and goals and provide a sense of where things are. There should be nothing about what some university scientists did in a small scale in their lab and hoopla was created around it. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)