User:Charles Cooley/sandbox

 Week 5: Breadbox Wiki page discussion 

'''•Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

The most distracting part of the article is the “As a saying” section. It primarily focuses upon the origin of a phrase used to describe another object in comparison to the size of a breadbox. It doesn’t provide further information on the breadbox or its history and as such detracts from the informative goal of the article.

'''•Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The article does appear to be neutral. Indications of gender bias are not readily apparent, nor is the breadbox being marketed as a more effective option over other dry food storage methods.

•Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoint of the consumer/owner of the breadbox doesn’t appear to be represented in the article. Information pertaining to the performance of the box, as well as reasons for ownership for aesthetic or other reasons are not covered. Design goals are presented, but not supported with evidence suggesting the improvement of storing bread in the box over other storage areas/methods.

'''•Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

All of the links work for the Breadbox article. However, the validity of the sources is to be doubted. The citations for the most part, with the exception of one, are from websites which provide anecdotal evidence that is not further supported with its own citations from other reliable sources.

'''• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

No, all but one of the five references in the article is from websites. While having an origin from a website in itself is not detrimental to the source of information, the websites referenced fail to provide any reliable peer reviewed sources to support their statements. Additionally, references two and four are from sites in which the publication is based on anecdotal evidence and provides plenty of speculation and potential for bias. This bias, while not apparent in the Wikipedia Breadbox article, is somewhat apparent in its sources. Furthermore, there is speculation in the article that is completely unreferenced and should be considered unreliable.

'''•Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''

There is a significant amount of information that could be added. Historical significance, development, construction methods, historical origins, implications in society, and more beyond that could be added to improve the existing knowledge that is published on the Breadbox page. Points of view, opposing and supporting could be added to indicate the relative significance or failure of the box. Additionally, the article is lacking in citations and quality of citations and as such could benefit highly from a new perspective and search for relevant information about the topic from peer reviewed and accepted sources.

'''• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?'''

The topics on the talk page are fairly out of date, with the most recent being June 2016. That being said, the most recent discussion in February 2015 revolves around the inner temperature and atmospheric conditions of the Breadbox contributing to the condition of the contents. Based on the talk history, it can be concluded that more work is needed to further develop the page and provide more information on the topic.

'''•How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

The article is rated stub, is part of WikiProject Woodworking, and has a mid-importance.

 Week 6: Working in Groups - Chemical Revolution Wiki Article 

''- Why did you choose it? What's missing? What do you want to add?''

Chemical Revolution article is listed as start class, and important. Additionally, Clayton is a Chemistry major so there is a vested personal interest in the project. The article is missing a rigid structure, lacking the definition of the development of the chemical revolution, its importance, and a lead into modern chemistry methods and practices. A formal structure, outlining the start, development, importance, duration, significant achievements or benchmarks over previous methods, and lead in to modern analytical chemistry would be a good start to add to the article. As it currently sits, the article is lacking in a coherent structure.

- Look up sources and start putting the list in our sandbox.

(1) The Méthode de nomenclature chimique (1787): A Document of Transition (2018)

http://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB097357446/

Wolfgang Lefèvre (Author)

(2) Lavoisier's “Reflections on Phlogiston” I: Against Phlogiston Theory (2015)

http://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB001552591/

Best, Nicholas W. (Author)

- If we have time, start adding to the articles talk page.

Copied From Chemical Revolution

 Week 7: Editing an Article - Chemical Revolution 

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Antoine Lavoisier section of the Chemical Revolution Wikipedia article is missing a citation that supports the claim made that Lavoisier discovered the law of conservation of mass. The edit to be done today on March 8, 2019 is to find and add a citation that supports this claim.

Upon further research, it has been discovered in a journal article that Lavoisier is incorrectly credited with the discovery of the Law of Conservation of Matter. The citation supporting this claim can be found below. The Chemical Revolution Wiki Article has not been edited yet, but will be once the appropriate changes to the Antoine Lavoisier section have been made to support this claim.

To be added: According to Marcellin Berthelot, Lavoisier has been incorrectly identified as the founder of the Law of Conservation of Matter. (Further clarification and citation of the clarification to be added using source below.)

Blumenthal, Geoffrey. “On Lavoisier’s Achievement in Chemistry.” Centaurus, vol. 55, no. 1, Feb. 2013, pp. 20–47. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/1600-0498.12001.

Guerlac, H. (1961) Lavoisier: the crucial year: the background and origin of his first experiments in combustion in 1772 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).

Antoine Lavoisier
The latter stages of the revolution was fuelled by the 1789 publication of Lavoisier's Traité Élémentaire de Chimie (Elements of Chemistry). Beginning with this publication and others to follow, Lavoisier synthesised the work of others and coined the term "oxygen". Antoine Lavoisier represented the chemical revolution not only in his publications, but also in the way he practiced chemistry. Lavoisier's work was characterized by his systematic determination of weights and his strong emphasis on precision and accuracy. While it has been postulated that the law of conservation of mass was discovered by Lavoisier, this claim has been refuted by scientist Marcellin Berthelot. Earlier use of the law of conservation of mass has been suggested by Henry Guerlac, noting that scientist Jan Baptist van Helmont had implicitly applied the methodology to his work in the 16th and 17th centuries. Earlier references of the law of conservation of mass and its use were made by Jean Rey in 1630. Although the law of conservation of mass was not explicitly discovered by Lavoisier, his work with a wider array of materials than what most scientists had available at the time allowed his work to greatly expand the boundaries of the principal and its fundamentals.

Peer edit by Charles Cooley (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The draft does a good job providing more information related to the background of John Napier. It provides information that is not readily available in the current Wikipedia article and helps to clarify some of the viewpoints that may currently exist that influence peoples perception of Napier and his achievements.

Overall the changes to the article provide what appears to be relevant and interesting background information. However, I would suggest revising the sentence structure in some parts of the draft. Splitting sentences can provide more information and improve the flow of the draft as opposed to using long winded sentences with quotations inside. However, the overall quality of the information is strong and interesting.

The biggest suggested improvement would be finding and providing the relevant citations to support the claims made within the draft. While citations are currently provided at the end of each section of the drafted changes, it does not show how each sentence or claim within the draft is supported. If a single source is being cited it is helpful to provide citations that indicate where in the cited material the claim being made is supported.

Providing background on religious affiliation helps readers to further understand the individual in the Wikipedia article. It may also help explain bias or other issues towards or with the individual in the time period if applicable. This methodology could be applied to other articles and as such is a noteworthy feature of the draft. Charles Cooley (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to peer review
The plan is to add other points of view, but because of the time constraint of the class and the limitation placed on the overall word count to be added to the article only so many points of view can be addressed. To help alleviate not being able to put in as much detail as desired to give credit to all those involved in the chemical revolution, clarification was added to the section on Lavoisier to help show that he was not the sole discoverer of the law of conservation of mass and that others many years before him contributed indirectly to the revolution in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Currently, further research is being done to help fill in additional information on those scientists who helped in the formulation of the law of conservation of mass discussed in the section change on Lavoisier. That material has yet to be added since it is still in the research phase. Additionally, implementing how other scientists used the law of conservation of mass and other discoveries by those in the chemical revolution for future experiments is being researched alongside achievements of other scientists during the chemical revolution.

Improving Your Article:
Looking at following sources to improve the quality and descriptiveness of the article draft change on the section about Antoine Lavoisier:

[1] Ducheyne, S. (2008). A Preliminary Study of the Appropriation of Van Helmont’s oeuvre in Britain in Chymistry, Medicine and Natural Philosophy. AMBIX, 55(2), 122–135. https://doi-org.libproxy.mst.edu/10.1179/174582308X255479

This source focuses on the life of Jan Baptist Van Helmont and his contributions to science. This will be hopefully used to support the section addition in reference to the works of earlier scientists with respect to the development of the law of conservation of mass during the chemical revolution.

[2] De Milt, C. (1953). The essays of jean rey. Journal of Chemical Education, 30(7), 377. doi:10.1021/ed030p377.3

Source two is to be used to find "The Essays of Jean Rey, Doctor of Medicine" in order to support the work of Jean Rey in the early 17th century and his work on the decomposition of metals using oxygen. This is the earlier reference of the law of conservation of mass mentioned in the article by Henry Guerlac.

Draft of Additions for Improving Your Article Section:
While it has been postulated that the law of conservation of mass was discovered by Lavoisier, this claim has been refuted by scientist Marcellin Berthelot. Earlier use of the law of conservation of mass has been suggested by Henry Guerlac, noting that scientist Jan Baptist van Helmont had implicitly applied the methodology to his work in the 16th and 17th centuries. Earlier references of the law of conservation of mass and its use were made by Jean Rey in 1630. Although the law of conservation of mass was not explicitly discovered by Lavoisier, his work with a wider array of materials than what most scientists had available at the time allowed his work to greatly expand the boundaries of the principal and its fundamentals.

Van Helmont:
Van Helmont's discoveries and insistence on the use of empirical observation techniques and scientific methodology in research.

Van Helmont's experimental approach, and his works on various disciplines and how they relate to the work that Lavoisier was doing later on during the Chemical Revolution.

Van Helmont's Contributions: Finding specific gravity of urine for diagnosticians to use in healthcare, creating the practice and method of thermometry, work on the "indestructability" of matter, showing the existence of CO2 in waters of naturally occurring spas. [1]

Helmont's views: He thought that water was the universal element, and that it is the consitution of all natural "things" [1]

Van Helmont is credited with creating the phrasing 'gas' based on the Greek word Chaos during his work with the chemical decomposition of charcoal during is combustion. [1]

* Possibly adding entire section on Van Helmont and his works and how they contribute to the Chemical Revolution.

Jean Rey:
The work of Rey in the early 17th century with metals like tin and lead and oxidation and the contribution of oxygen to the oxidizing process. First known instance of the attribution of oxygen in the chemical reaction process. [2]

Final Article Additions:
Earlier works by chemists such as John Baptist van Helmont helped to shift the belief in theory that air existed as a single element to that of one in which air existed as a composition of a mixture of distinct kinds of gasses. John Baptist van Helmont’s data analysis also suggests that he had a general understanding of the law of conservation of mass in the 17th century. Furthermore, work by Jean Rey in the early 17th century with metals like tin and lead and their oxidation in the presence of air and water helped pinpoint the contribution and existence of oxygen in the oxidation process.


 * Ducheyne, S. (2008). A preliminary study of the appropriation of van helmont's oeuvre in britain in chymistry, medicine and natural philosophy. Ambix, 55(2), 122-135. doi:10.1179/174582308X255479
 * De Milt, C. (1953). The essays of jean rey. Journal of Chemical Education, 30(7), 377. doi:10.1021/ed030p377.3