User:Aewmnw/sandbox

= History of Science (Spring 2021) =

Structure and mechanism
The concept of alkahest relied significantly on the beliefs of the time, particularly belief in alchemy, Helmontian theories, and the physical theory of corpuscularianism. According to Helmont and Boyle, the alkahest had a "microstructure", meaning it was comprised of extremely small, homogenous corpuscles. This structure allowed the alkahest's corpuscles to move between the corpuscles of all other materials and mechanically separate them without altering their base materials or itself. Given that it didn't chemically react with other substances, alkahest was thought to be infinitely reusable. It was these qualities which made the alkahest distinct from ordinary corrossives, which are altered by the substances they act upon and thus are not infinitely reusable.

Expanding draft & Peer Review (3/19)
Click here for main Alkahest article.

Recipe
The recipe for the theorized alkahest, as many alchemical recipes were, was often kept secret. There were many alchemists attempting to obtain the universal solvent, and thus many recipes, some later rejected by their creators, have been found.

Paracelsus' own recipe for alkahest was made of caustic lime, alcohol, and carbonate of potash; however, his recipe was not intended to be a "universal solvent".

Following Paracelsus, it was the chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont who expanded on the alkahest, believing it was a universal solvent. Helmont claimed that knowledge of the recipe was granted by God and was therefore known by few, and he had many dreams during which he believed he had been gifted the recipe, only to find them inadequate. Given the difficulty of obtaining alkahest, Helmont suggested the use of other, inferior substances that they believed were capable of similar tasks. Volatile salt of tartar, also known as pyrotartaric acid or glutaric acid, was considered both a substitute for alkahest and a component of alkahest Helmont's writings also referred to a fourteenth century alchemical manuscript which discussed sal alkali, which may have been caustic potash or lye, that was capable of dissolving many substances and may have been an ingredient for Helmont's alkahest.

In the seventeenth century, many alchemists were working on obtaining the alkahest, some being Johann Rudolf Glauber, George Starkey, Frederick Clod, Thomas Vaughan, Thomas Henshaw, Johann Brun, Robert Hamilton, Hugh Piatt, and Robert Child. Glauber believed that the alkahest was a class of substances, rather than one, particular substance. Glauber believed he had discovered alkahest after discovering that volatile niter (nitric acid) and fixed niter (potassium carbonate) were able to dissolve many substances. Starkey described alkahest as a circulated salt that is neither acid nor alkali. Moreover, Starkey believed that, because acid saline liquors are destroyed by alkalies and urinous spirits, they cannot be ingredients of the immortal alkahest. He believed instead that non-acidic substances could be ingredients of the alkahest, some of these suspected substances being urinous spirits, spirit of alkalies, and sulphureous vegetable spirits. In particular, Starkey believed that the secret to alkahest laid within urine. Clodius believed that mercury could convert salts into "ponderous liquor", which he believed was needed to make the alkahest.

Message to Peer Reviewer(s)
In this draft, I've incorporated a couple of sentences that were in the original Alkahest article; however, both of these had improper citations, and I intend on looking for corroboration of the information in more reliable sources moving forward (or I may remove that information). Also, I didn't put my citations in Wikipedia citation form on purpose, as it's easier to see where information came from while I'm still drafting. I will fix this before moving it to the mainspace.

Additionally, I want to come up with a better way to organize the recipe section. Currently, I have it loosely organized in somewhat chronological order (I was unable to find the specific dates for these individuals' discoveries) but it feels very disjointed.

If anyone has any advice on the best organization of the recipe section and the order of the sections, I would be happy to hear it. At the moment, I'm thinking of removing the Paracelsus's successor section (merging relevant info elsewhere) and organizing it as:


 * Etymology
 * Proposed mechanisms (new section)
 * Issues with the concept
 * Recipe (new section)
 * Uses for alkahest (new section)

Thank you for any help you can provide! You're also welcome to scroll further to see my notes for proposed mechanisms and uses for Alkahest and give any feedback on those.

Peer Review
1. The additions are written clearly and the content is easy to understand. It looks like you have found a lot of good relevant information and it was interesting to read. I like that you linked other articles in your addition so readers can easily find information about certain chemicals or alchemists.

2. As mentioned in your message to peer reviewers, I agree more sources would help make sure your article is unbiased and has accurate information.

3. The flow of the sections you added are a little disconnected. If you are able, you could connect them based on what types of recipes they used. For example, if multiple recipes used urine or any commonalities. I think chronological order would also work if you added a few transition sentences to make the alchemist connect or made an introduction sentence saying something about how it is organized chronologically.

4. I also need to work on making the section I’m adding flow better. I think organizing my information in chronological order could help. Epitz (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to Epitz (4/2)
Many of their suggestions were similar to my own goals for my section as mentioned in my message to peer reviewers. I do want to diversify my sources to ensure it is unbiased; however, I am struggling to find many sources. I am going to look more into these individual people and see if I can find their own publications or journals about their recipes for Alkahest. I also will reorganize my Recipe section prior to moving to the mainspace, but am still brainstorming what the best method of doing so is. Ash Worley (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Review by Dplf2b (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

I think the article adds meaningful information to a section that is lacking. I'm impressed by how organized everything is and personally think adding the message to peer reviewers was a good idea to help me, the reviewer, understand what they know still needs to be added before it can be put into the article. Having all the different creators and their unique recipes for 'Alkahest' really shows how people were searching for that perfect solution and how there wasn't one agreed upon method of creation. Also the addition of the new sections mentioned in the Message to Peer Reviewer(s) is a great idea, just make sure there is a good amount of information in each of them so the warrant a section of their own.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

There is very little information in the Recipe section of Wikipedia, but the author has addressed this and plans to make additions to that section. More information one might add could be the trial and error of some of the creators and how their recipes changed as they progressed throughout their experimentation. I'm unsure if that information is easily found, but explaining the journey to creating the perfect alkahest and how difficult it actually was would be relevant to the article. Another thing that could be expanded on is why alkahest was so sought after and what the first few creators did to try and find it. I know it is briefly talked about in the article but explaining the why it was important, the first people to attempt creating it, and then their journey some took to try and find that perfect solution would give more meaning to all who made the attempt.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Honestly, the thing I think the article needs most is information. Adding in relevant and useful information to the article in any way will be a great addition. Great work so far, keep it up!

Response to Dplf2b (4/2)
They mentioned that it may be a good idea to emphasize the trial and error involved in these alchemist's journeys to discovering alkahest, which I intend on adding. There are many who believed they discovered the recipe several times, only to later change their minds. I also agree that it might be good to emphasize the reason as to why alkahest was so sought after, which is a difficult topic to approach but may be best placed in the (proposed) new section on uses for alkahest. Ash Worley (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review by Njsrk9 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
'''1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?''' Lots of information that doesn’t exist at all in the original article. '''2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?''' I like lots of facts and information, but it feels wordy. Maybe I’m picky (that’s probably it, the draft seems fine). I know you said it’s hard to get an exact date on when these discoveries were made. Could probably get away with a Circa (after you introduce a new discovery/maybe each paragraph) if you have a general idea of when they happened from your sources. My article so far is also relying on a small number of sources, but finding more sources is never a bad thing. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Like you said in the Message section, a way to organize all that information would be good. Not entirely sure how to help on that front though since I know absolutely nothing about the subject. Might feel less disjointed if you add transitions or if you don’t end each paragraph on a new fact, but, again, no clue how you might go about that. '''4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!''' I like the roadmap you put in there, makes the process seem less crazy. Njsrk9 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to Njsrk9 (4/2)
I agree that it feels wordy and doesn't flow very well, which is something I intend on working on before moving it to the mainspace. Additionally, as other reviewers noted, there is much need for diversification of sources, and I have found one primary source published by one of the alchemists about Alkahest, but am still searching for others to better support my information.

I will certainly work on adding transitions, perhaps ones that imply a continuation or flow of time as these alchemists are ordered somewhat chronologically. Perhaps I can note that many of them were working at the same time as one another in the introduction. Ash Worley (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Info on proposed mechanisms for Alkahest

 * The alkahest was believed to be comprised of extremely small and homogenous corpuscles, which was thought to be small enough to move between the corpuscles of all other materials and pull them apart without altering them or itself (137-8, Newman & Principe). Alkahest was thought to be infinitely reusable, as it could be pulled back out from the dissolved materials. This quality distinguishes alkahest from ordinary corrosives, which are affected by the substances they act upon. (289) Ash Worley (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Info on proposed uses for Alkahest

 * Boyle believed that some substances, such as mercury, were so homogenous that they were unable to be altered by anything other than alkahest, which he believed removed "external, impure" sulfur and left behind a mercury that would resist corrosion (214, Newman & Principe). Ash Worley (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Info on recipe/ingredients for Alkahest

 * Given the difficulty of obtaining the theorized alkahest, some alchemists, such as Van Helmont, suggested using other substances as substitutes (Newman & Principe, 138). Volatile salt of tartar or pyrotartaric acid, while still considered inferior to alkahest, was suggested to be capable of similar tasks that the alkahest was desired for (Newman & Principe, 138). Volatile salt of tartar was also considered by some to be a component of alkahest (Guido).
 * Glauber believed that he had discovered alkahest upon finding that volatile niter (nitric acid) and fixed niter (potassium carbonate) were able to dissolve a host of substances (242-3, Newman & Principe)
 * Clodius believed that mercury converted salts into "ponderous liquor", which he believed was needed in order to make alkahest (249, Newman & Principe).
 * Alkahest was believed by Van Helmont to be a "circulated salt" (275, Newman & Principe)
 * Starkey believed that, because acid saline liquors are destroyed by alkalies and "urinous spirits", they cannot be ingredients of the alkahest, but that non-acidic substances could be (Newman & Principe, 282). Examples of non-acidic substances that Starkey considered to be potential candidates were urinous spirits, spirit of alkalies, and sulphureous vegetable spirits (282).
 * Starkey believed that the secret to alkahest laid within urine (Newman & Principe, 286). Ash Worley (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Alkahest edits (3/5)

 * 1) Paracelsus coined the term "alkahest" as a "universal solvent" which he believed would separate solutions without destroying or altering its components (Guido)
 * 2) Pyrotartaric acid or volatile salt of tartar is a component of alkahest. (Guido)
 * 3) Alternative names: arcanum of fire (Guido), ignis gehennae (Alfonso-Goldfarb, 2010)
 * 4) J.B. van Helmont believed the knowledge of the recipe was granted to few by God (Alfonso-Goldfarb, 2014).

Article evaluation of Rainbow

 * 1) The topics within the article seem to be mostly relevant, but many lack proper citations and/or lack content in general. The section that felt the most out of place is the culture section, which has its own main article and perhaps should not have a section in this article. I also wonder if this could be integrated with the history of the rainbow.
 * 2) The article is not entirely neutral. Particularly in the scientific history section, the writer seemed to place judgement on the accuracy of previous explanations for rainbows: "This explanation, however, was also incorrect" and gave an unnecessary quote from modern scientists which merely spoke to Aristotle's "inventiveness".
 * 3) The modern scientific conception of the rainbow is overrepresented throughout the article.
 * 4) Most of the citations I checked did have working links; however, there were a couple that were broken.
 * 5) Each fact is not appropriately referenced, as many sentences are left uncited and many sentences have [citation needed] within them.
 * 6) I didn't necessarily notice any out of date info; however, the historical section seems to miss key points and lacks citations throughout (ex. does not actually discuss Aristotle's theory of the rainbow, did not name Newton's Experimentum Crucis).
 * 7) There aren't many conversations going on in the talk page, and none of them seem to be addressing the larger flaws in content and citations, but rather focus on minor details such as pictures and the languages in the sidebar not being in alphabetical order.
 * 8) The article is rated as C-Class and is a level-4 vital article. It is a part of 3 Wikiprojects.
 * 9) The way that the scientific history is discussed in this article feels much more judgemental than the way that we talked about it in class. Much of the context of why/how people would come to these conclusions with what access to instrumentation they had and their current conceptions of the world and cosmos is missing. Ash Worley (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

= Personality Theory (Spring 2020) =

Shared sandbox for Religion and personality
Click here.

Article Evaluation of Religion and personality
There are numerous typos throughout the article, as well as sentences which seem misleading, confusing, biased, or are not clearly cited. There are also several things which could likely link to other Wikipedia pages, both for the sake of brevity and so that readers can quickly access more information about those topics.

Much of the article appears to focus on Christianity, but it isn't clear if this is due to biases in the literature or in the writer. If research in other religions hasn't been completed, this could be an important thing to mention so that readers are aware of the current limitations in research.

As far as article sections, it might be good to talk about some more models of personality, such as the HEXACO model. "Religion and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator", "Religiosity and paranormal beliefs", and "Religion as a personality characteristic" might need to be removed or further explained, as they seem a bit weak and off topic. It also appears that "Religious struggles and personality" should be included under the five-factor model section, as it too talks about the Big Five. Ash Worley (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding to Religion and personality
Familiarize yourself with editing Wikipedia by adding a citation to an article. Use the modules here ("Adding citations" and "Copyedit an article") to learn how to add to an article. There are two ways you can find articles to add citations too:


 * Add 1-2 sentences to a course-related article, and cite that statement to a reliable source, as you learned in the online training.


 * The Citation Hunt tool shows unreferenced statements from articles. First, evaluate whether the statement in question is true! An uncited statement could just be lacking a reference or it could be inaccurate or misleading. Reliable sources on the subject will help you choose whether to add it or correct the statement.

but rather something that can share common features with personality traits. Religiosity and personality traits both relate to one's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. However, one's level of religiosity is often measured by the presence or lack of belief in a higher power, sense of relationship with a higher power, adoption of a certain lifestyle or behaviors for a higher power, and a sense of belonging with other followers of said religion. Secondly, personality traits generally follow a normal distribution, such that most individuals' personality trait scores are concentrated towards the middle, rather than being extremely high or low. Distributions for religiosity, however, follow nonnormal distributions, such that there are more individuals who exhibit high or low religiosity.

However, many sources on the topic of religion and personality are from individual studies, rather than meta-analyses which summarize the results of many studies. Therefore, it is difficult to determine what the overall consensus is within the literature, and...

Draft your article (Religion and personality)
Article could still use some general editing for clarity, grammar, typos, etc.

The article still appears very biased towards Christianity (as much of the research also appears to be), which I don't think is noted anywhere in the article.

Some sections, like the five-factor model section and attachment theory, could be presented more clearly and concisely (using bullet points, referring to other wiki articles if possible, etc.) rather than having a wall of text.

It would be a good idea to look at each source already used, identify whether it is a meta-analysis or not, and note potential limitations for each.

Attachment theory is still incorrectly explained, as it entirely misses one of the attachment styles.

Any seemingly biased/opinionated sentences which aren't cited should be rephrased or removed (ex. "Most religions are based around a belief in some sort of supernatural being." Is this an opinion or a fact? Who said this? Could it be better to say that ).

The section for religion as a personality characteristic might benefit from removal, being put closer to the top, or even being integrated with the introduction. I'm also uncertain if the source they noted actually argued that religiosity is a personality trait, because I was under the impression that Saroglou instead aimed to simply define religiosity. -Ash Worley (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)