User:ThisIsForHistory/sandbox

Peer Review by Rm738 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1.The article expands more on which people effected the Chemical revolution besides Lavoisier because obviously he can’t be the only person so nice. I also like how you showed the works and papers each individual published for there theories. I like how you guys wanted to restructure the paragraphs in the article instead of just adding on because it does help to clarify work already in the article. I also like how you reference each scientist in each paragraph and how their work effected the other scientist works 2.Something I would suggest is to fine tune sentence flow. Most of the time it’s good but some areas needed an extra word like “a, an, etc”. Also on the works of the individuals, if available, add the dates of the proposed theory or experiments they did. You guys did for some, but not all. You guys said it already it but more sources to verify the source you guys use (don’t get me wrong nice job on finding a good source to be able to do all you guys have done already, but add a source just to support it) 3.I would just a sentence flow. Also if it is not done already but link key words to other Wikipedia articles. (ex. Barometer (some people might know what that is but some don’t so that would be a good work to link) 4.I like you guys added the works the individual published because that is definitely something I could add for my article.

Peer Review by Kbonneville (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
-Kbonneville (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I like that other scientists have been added to this article instead of it solely being one persons’ work. It’s also important to add into Antoine’s section about how he used other peoples’ ideas as well. The original article is very biased towards Antoine when there are several people involved.
 * 2) It has already been stated but I think other references should be added to the new sections. This is important to see multiple points of views and not be heavily biased. The addition to Antoine’s section is a little hard to follow. It might be nice to add a little extra on how each of those added people actually experimented and found their discoveries.
 * 3) I think continuing research on other people and adding in how they contributed is important since this is a whole revolution, not just one person should be credited.
 * 4) My article is a single person so it’s a little different, but it might be nice to add how people took her findings and did future experiments. Or, if other people were also working on this and if she used other peoples’ ideas.

Peer Review of John Napier Article Draft Changes
ThisIsForHistory (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) "There are no records showing that John Napier completed his education at St Andrews, and it is believed he left Scotland to further his education in mainland Europe, following the advice given by his uncle Adam Bothwell in a letter written to John Napier’s father on 5 December 1560, saying, “I pray you, sir, to send John to the schools either to France or Flanders, for he can learn no good at home”." This is good information but you should break it up into multiple sentences.
 * 2) This contract was never fulfilled by Napier, and no gold was found when the Edinburgh Archaeological Field society excavated the castle in between 1971 and 1968. Are the dates here correct? If so they should be switched to be chronological.
 * 3) The John Napier article has a lot of sections that need more fleshing out and what you have drafted will help flesh those areas out.
 * 4) John Napier was definitely influential in the field of mathematics and the Influence section needs to be expanded on his page. You have some good quotes from Kepler about how logarithms made math quicker and easier as well as how some mathematicians accepted or rejected the new idea of logarithms. Expanding on these quotes in the Influence section will really help improve that section and the article as a whole.

Article Evaluation
Chemical revolution

The article is disorganized. In the first section it seems to give multiple definitions of what the Chemical Revolution was and when it occurred while also mentioning the Scientific Revolution. There needs to be a better tie in or explanation for how the Scientific and Chemical Revolutions are related but different. Also Antoine Lavoisier is the only scientist with a section abut his works and findings but other scientists with discoveries are mentioned throughout the article and need to be expanded on, such as Robert Boyle, Henry Cavendish, Joseph Priestley, and Pierre Simon de Laplace.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The article is biased towards Lavoisier and his work because that is the only scientist section. Other scientists and their experiments, discoveries, and tools need to be included.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?


 * Are there viewpoints that are over presented, or under presented? Lavoisier and his works is presented.  There needs to be more work from other scientists.  Lavoisier may have be the famous scientist for the Chemical Revolution but others contributed and made discoveries that need to be recorded and presented.

There are not many citations in total and most of them reference older materials.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work?  Does the source support the claims in the article?

The sources look to be different books but about half of them were published before 2000. Perhaps there are newer sources or books out there that could have more information to be added to the page.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from?  Are these neutral sources?  If biased, is that biased noted?


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There hasn't been a conversation on the talk page since 2016, and then 2008 before that. There is some discussion of a First and Second Chemical Revolution, which is also mentioned in the article, but is never addressed in any depth. There needs to be more information about the this first and second revolutions that needs to be expanded on, perhaps as two sections on the page or as two separate pages in Wikipedia. ThisIsForHistory (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

03/01/2019

Why did you choose this article? What is missing and what do you want to add?

The Chemical Revolution is an important event in history that changed the ways humans interpret and understand the world. New technologies and experiments lead to new ideas that challenged the Aristotelian worldview that was still present in Europe. More information about other scientists that contributed to the revolution should be added, such as Robert Boyle, John Dalton, and Jons Jakob Berzelius (considered fathers of modern chemistry with Lavoisier), as well as Pierre Simon de Laplace, Henry Cavendish, and Joseph Priestly A better definition of what the Chemical Revolution was and when it occurs is needed, the article says it took place in the 19-20th centuries and then at the end of the same paragraph it says it occurred during the 17-18th century. The article needs a more defined structure with definition, scientists with experiments and new technologies.

Article Draft Changes
Chemical revolution

Traité élémentaire de chimie

One of Lavoisier's main influences was Étienne Bonnet, abbé de Condillac. Condillac's approach to scientific research, which was the basis of Lavoisier's approach in Traité, was to demonstrate that human beings could create a mental representation of the world using gathered evidence. In Lavoisier's preface to Traité, he states

It is a maxim universally admitted in geometry, and indeed in every branch of knowledge, that, in the progress of investigation, we should proceed from known facts to what is unknown. ... In this manner, from a series of sensations, observations, and analyses, a successive train of ideas arises, so linked together, that an attentive observer may trace back to a certain point the order and connection of the whole sum of human knowledge.

Lavoisier clearly ties his ideas in with those of Condillac, seeking to reform the field of chemistry. His goal in Traité was to associate the field with direct experience and observation, rather than assumption. His work defined a new foundation for the basis of chemical ideas and set a direction for the future course of chemistry.

Méthode de nomenclature chimique

Antoine Lavoisier, in a collaborative effort with Louis Bernard Guyton de Morveau, Claude Louis Berthollet, and Antoine François de Fourcroy, published Méthode de nomenclature chimique in 1787. This work established a terminology for the "new chemistry" which Lavoisier was creating, which focused on a standardized set of terms, establishment of new elements, and experimental work. Méthode established 55 elements which were substances that could not be broken down into simpler composite parts at the time of publishing. By introducing new terminology into the field, Lavoisier encouraged other chemists to adopt his theories and practices in order to use his terms and stay current in chemistry.

The order of sections above in the article do not make sense because Traité élémentaire de chimie was published after Méthode de nomenclature chimique but is discussed first. I am going to switch the paragraphs to follow the order of publication. Also the Making Modern Science A Historical Survey, textbook for this class, says that Méthode de nomenclature chimique was published in 1782. The wikipedia page and source say it was published in 1787. The Library of Congress also states that the text was published in 1787.

Original Chemical revolution Edits
Antoine Lavoisier has his own section but there were other chemists making important discoveries too during the Chemical revolution and they need their own sections as well. Below are the proposed new section of chemists to be added underneath Lavoisier. The source for all this information is the class textbook "Making Modern Science" by Bowler and Morus. More research needs to be performed to find more sources to better flesh out the sections.

Humphry Davy
Humphry Davy was a Cornish chemist and a professor of chemistry at the London's Royal Institution in the early 1800's. There he performed experiments that cast doubt upon some of Lavoisier's key ideas such as the acidity of oxygen and the idea of a caloric element. Davy was able to show that acidity was not due to the presence of oxygen using muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid) as proof. He also proved that the compound oxymuriatic acid contained no oxygen and was instead an element, which he named chlorine. Through his use of electric batteries at the Royal Institution Davy first isolated chlorine, followed by the isolation of elemental iodine in 1813. Using the batteries Davy was also able to isolate the elements sodium and potassium. From these experiments Davy concluded that the forces that join chemical elements together must be electrical in nature. Davy was also a proponent against the idea that caloric was an immaterial fluid, arguing instead that heat was a type of motion.

John Dalton
John Dalton was an English chemist that developed the idea of atomic theory of chemical elements. Dalton's atomic theory of chemical elements assumed that each element had unique atoms associated with and specific to that atom. This was in opposition to Lavoisier's definition of elements which was that elements are substances that chemists could not break down further into simpler parts. Dalton's idea also differed from the idea of corpuscular theory of matter, which believed that all atoms were the same, and had been a supported theory since the 17th century. To help support his idea, Dalton worked on defining the relative weights of atoms in chemicals in his work New System of Chemical Philosophy, published in 1808. His text showed calculations to determine the relative atomic weights of Lavoisier's different elements based on experimental data pertaining to the relative amounts of different elements in chemical combinations. Dalton argued that elements would combine in the simplest form possible. Water was known to be a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, thus Dalton believed water to be a binary compound containing one hydrogen and one oxygen.

Dalton was able to accurately compute the relative quantity of gases in atmospheric air. He used the specific gravity of azotic (nitrogen), oxygenous, carbonic acid (carbon dioxide), and hydrogenous gases as well as aqueous vapor determined by Lavoisier and Davy to determine the proportional weights of each as a percent of a whole volume of atmospheric air. Dalton determined that atmospheric air contains 75.55% azotic gas, 23.32% oxygenous gas, 1.03% aqueous vapor, and 0.10% carbonic acid gas.

Jöns Jacob Berzelius
Jöns Jacob Berzelius was a Swedish chemist who studied medicine at the Univseristy of Uppsala and was a professor of chemistry in Stockholm. He drew on the ideas of both Davy and Dalton to create an electrochemical view of how elements combined together. Berzelius classified elements into two groups, electronegative and electropositive depending which pole of a galvanic battery they were released from when decomposed. He created a scale of charge with oxygen being the most electronegative element and potassium the most electropositive. This scale signified that some elements had positive and negative charges associated with them and the position of an element on this scale and the element's charge determined how that element combined with others. Berzelius's work on electrochemical atomic theory was published in 1818 as Essai sur la théorie des proportions chimiques et sur l'influence chimique de l'électricité. He also introduced a new chemical nomenclature into chemistry by representing elements with letters and abbreviations, such as O for oxygen and Fe for iron. Combinations of elements were represented as sequences of these symbols and the number of atoms were represented at first by superscripts and then later subscripts. 

The below section with the underlined text shows the current revision of the section on Antoine Lavoisier that is planned to be implemented in the Wikipedia page on the Chemical Revolution. It is planned to be added to show that while Lavoisier's work with new elements was critical to the movement, he was not the founder of the law of conservation of mass. The underlined text provides background on this and helps clarify that the principal had been around for nearly a century prior to Lavoisier's work in the field.

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. Charles Cooley (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Charles Cooley

Structure of chemical revolutions
Thomas Kuhn describes scientific revolutions as a sum of processes occurring over time. The beginning of a revolution is the scientific discovery of an anomaly. More research into this anomaly or new idea leads to the generation of new scientific theories. These theories can be novel and add to the world of scientific knowledge or the theories can lead to a crisis. Kuhn describes a crisis as a conflict of the new theories with the existing theories and world views. Over time and with scientific evidence the new theories are accepted and the world view expands or changes.

Kuhn describes Lavoisier's work with oxygen gas as the discovery of an anomaly. Lavoisier's continued research and work to disprove the phlogiston theory and usher in his new chemistry lead to the crisis event.

Peer Edit by Jasonkostelnick (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
4. How it applied to me: You guys have done a ton of work and it looks very good. Using the same sandbox to take notes might be something I do as well, as usually I use a different document, which can be annoying to go back in forth with. Also, I like the underlining of the additions under the Antoine Lavoisier section, which can make it more distinct.
 * 1) What is done well: A good job is done on making sure to cite each idea to be safe, as well as linking the mentioned topics that have Wikipedia articles about them. I’m also impressed with the professionalism demonstrated by the grammar and word choice in your additions. Furthermore, making sure to refer to others that had an impact on the use of the Law of Conservation of Mass seems to cover differing views, which makes the article well-balanced.
 * 2) What could be changed still: Changes that could be further made to the article is linking other mentioned names and subjects that come earlier than the section that you guys have edited. This would allow the reader to further explore the specifics of the subject. Also, adding more subsections for the primary factors section could also benefit the article as a whole, with a further explanation of the larger factors.
 * 3) Most important change that can be made: The most important change that can be made is that of adding more information regarding the history leading up to Antoine Lavoisier, as the lead section does mention that recent study finds a lot more of a shift in theory and practice. I feel that the practices and others that impacted the revolution are covered well, however the theory portion could be hit harder to round out both sides of the argument of the article.