Talk:Solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance

Editing remarks

 * 1) Please use correct hyphenation when referring to solid-state NMR, i.e. write solid state when it's standing alone, and solid-state when it's describing another word. Example: "Some people don't like anisotropic interactions in the solid state.", but "We all like solid-state NMR spectroscopy".
 * 2) Note that, according to Wikipedia name conventions, an article's name must start with a capital letter, however, the first words of solid-state NMR are usually written in lower case. So, if you link to solid-state NMR (lower case), it will automatically link to the Wikipedia entry "Solid-state_NMR".
 * 3) The abbreviation for solid-state NMR is usually SSNMR or ssNMR, I sort of like both, but I would suggest to stick with the common way of capitalizing all letters of an acronym, i.e. writing SSNMR.
 * 4) Write solid-state NMR spectroscopy if you want to refer to the spectroscopic technique. I know everyone just says solid-state NMR, but that does not actually refer to the spectroscopic technique.
 * 5) Be short and precise :-)

Problems

 * 1) MAS is magic-angle spinning (that results in a Wikipedia Magic-angle_Spinning), but the article on MAS is Magic_Angle_Spinning. NB: Of course, it's still just the "magic angle", when referred to alone. What do we do with that? For reference on the spelling, see e.g. "Duer: Introduction to Solid-State NMR Spectroscopy".

Organization and References
Beneath other re-structuring and expanding, I re-organized the Reference section a bit, making the "Suggested readings for beginners" a subsection of it, and introducing a subsection "Advanced readings". I'm not sure if the latter is a good idea, I just wanted to somehow separate the textbooks, which are more or less "readable" as a whole, from the many other research articles or books which are referred to in the text. Hope to see some comments on that.

I wonder if the "normal" references (called them General) should only include those publications which are actually referenced in the text, or also other articles and books. I think it should only be the referenced ones (as the name says, a reference, i.e. do it like in a thesis or research article), which means that somewhere in the text, a reference to Ernst's book and the Schaefer article should be made, or the references should be removed (for now).

The idea of the "beginners" subsection is still, of course, to give newcomers a few hints where to start off with some reading that's easy, and/or gives a brief view of SSNMR. Levitt's book is really a great account of NMR basics, but unfortunately spares SSNMR spectroscopy. Duer's description of NMR basics can't (in my opinion) keep up with it, but it has some nice parts on SSNMR spectroscopy, written in a student textbook fashion. This is why I suggest these two as starting points for newbies, together with a few easy-to-read review articles (who knows another one or two?) for getting an overview of what's going on in the field.

Second, I shifted around the History section. I ended up with the idea that an encyclopedia reader first likes to read an introduction, and then needs to know what all these interactions in the solids is about. Having dealt with the NMR in solids, one can now talk about spectroscopy of it. I think the History section can serve as a nice connection between the phenomena and the spectroscopy. The details of the spectroscopy (for brevity limited to modern techniques) could then follow in the "Modern SSNMR spectroscopy" section.

Third, I think some applications would be of interest to someone who wants to look up what solid-state NMR is about. I don't know much about non-biological applications, though. I'm sure someone is more qualified than me to write about it.

Organization
A nice example on how to organize articles on a complex topic is Baseball. Topics like "Batting" or "Pitching" are summarized, still containing quite some detail, and a link to a main article is given. Maybe one could do that with general concepts like "dipolar coupling" etc. as well. An existing example is Magic angle spinning.

References missing
The part under "Methods and techniques" is obviously copied from somewhere, but the references for [Waugh et al.] and [Hartmann] are missing. --129.13.72.198 (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Durg delivery
Hi. FYI I'd like to suggest the addition of a "drug delivery" subsection in the "applications" section. I can base this on a review I authored. As an alternative or supplementary source, I can put this one as a source but it's a little bit dated. That's why this review wasn't so bad as an main option. I have noo hurry, I just noticed that it's missing. Alexmar983 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)