User talk:Petergans/Archive 2

ADC
Hi Peter. Thanks for letting me know about ADC looking like its going to hit Featured status. You did great work there. Sorry about falling off the face of the earth...my job this summer entailed a lot of waiting around for experimental results. I had a lot more time to work on Wikipedia then than I do as a fairly involved undergraduate. I wish I could've helped you more. EagleFalconn (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I did some work on the lead of ADC, to try to make this part as non-technical as possible. I hope you'll see these changes as an improvement. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, since you didn't think those edits were accurate, I've switched the article back to before I started working on it. Sorry to have caused you problems and good luck with the FAC! Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The FAC acid dissociation constant
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates FAC status and the problems with ther lead of acid dissociation constant is discussed there.--Stone (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC discussion
Peter, sorry I didn't let you know of the discussion at the FAC talk page. I guess I didn't think it would attract quite as much attention as it has -- I was expecting a couple of FAC regulars to comment, perhaps. Anyway, I'm glad you did get notified. I think your post there today is a good summary of the issues, which are difficult ones to address using a consensus process (as opposed to a process where an expert can render judgement).

One other thing I forgot to answer from your note at my talk page -- I wouldn't worry about your trip on 13 December. The FAC will almost certainly be closed by that time, either promoted or failed; Sandy very rarely lets them stay open that long. I suspect (but I don't know) that this one is going to fail, because Sandy can't promote unless there is a consensus for, and there doesn't appear to be such a consensus yet. She can discount invalid opposes though, if they are clearly invalid per the criteria. Anyway, if it does fail, I would be glad to try to help the article further, if you'd like; perhaps to another attempt at FAC when (or if) the debate there is settled. Mike Christie (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant - re-written lead

I have now re-written the lead for acid dissociation constant. The essential content of the lead is the same as before. The effect of this change will be that when chemists will read the explanatory material they will say to themselves, yes, I know that, but non-chemists will hopefully get the gist of what the article is about

I invite you to read it and then record your “vote”, e.g. “now support” or “still oppose”, at wp:Featured_article_candidates/Acid_dissociation_constant. I have assembled a list of names under Re-written lead, so that the responses will be collected together in one place.

Some minor disagreements will inevitably remain. These should not be a reason for opposition. Rather, put constructive ideas on the article’s talk page, so that the article can be further improved by the normal editing process. Petergans (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think people will like the new lead because it is too long; the official guideline is maximum four paragraphs. I think you did a good job of making it more readable for non-chemists, but now it will need to be trimmed. Although the lead should summarize the article, I think it is safe to omit more details than you did. Perhaps some things that could be omitted or reduced considerably include pKb, Hammett's equation, buffers, polyprotic acids, and thermodynamics. Just say what the acid dissociation constant is, what it is good for, and some hint of how it is measured and what factors influence it. --Itub (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For an example of what I suggest, see User:Itub/ADC lead. --Itub (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, was concerned by the length, and the trimming that you suggest looks fine to me. I posted the message above " I have now re-written.." on the talk pages of all the opposers. I will now add the existence of this alternative there, too, so they can choose. Petergans (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ADC FAC
As you can see, the FAC didn't pass. I'm sorry that in previous comments I mistakenly assured you that it was certainly going to pass on the second try, but this failure came as a surprise to me as well. If you don't give up on the process altogether and want to try another time, I think that to have the best chance of success you need to have some of the key opposers on board. In particular, Proteins and Geometry Guy, which had the most substantial comments in my opinion (especially regarding content as opposed to just "readability"). I think they (same as most of the others) genuinely want this to pass in the end, and some have even tried to help, but they may feel we are too defensive. You are of course right to insist on technical accuracy, but perhaps if you were more accepting of others' contributions towards style, things would move more smoothly. Wikipedia has a certain hard-to-describe style that is quite different from technical monographs, reviews, textbooks, etc. and it is not as easy to write as it looks. This applies to the lead section most importantly; I have tried to help make it more Wikipedia-like and the reception was largely positive. I'll try to help refine it further if there is another nomination, but I can't promise anything about the rest of the article because it would take too much time.

Two suggestions: 1) if you could make the speciation figures in higher resolution, it would be great. High-quality articles need high-quality figures, and this was one of the concerns of the reviewers. 2) I suggest reading Words to avoid if you haven't done so yet. This page describes some of the aspects of Wikipedia style that prompted objections, such as the use of expressions such as "it should be noted..." --Itub (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add a note to make sure that you saw Geometry Guy's response at the FAC: he was definitely not impugning your professional integrity -- he was only referring to the prose. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Petergans. I was keeping an eye on this FAC and hoping I'd get a chance to put in some suggestions before it closed. Looks like I wasn't quick enough. Are you inclined to work on this task some more? Fine-tuning the lead, for example?  I would like to help if I can. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ADC
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I'm sorry to see that you feel the time was wasted, and truly sorry that it was such a terrible experience for you personally. I think there were some positives that came out of it too, and I'd like to mention those and say a little about Wikipedia's weaknesses and strengths.

The most important thing that's happened as a result of your involvement is that the article (as well as many other articles) is immeasurably better because of your work. Perhaps the current version is not the best version, in your opinion, but it's still true that a student, layman or professional visiting that page will find much more of use and much less inaccuracy than they would have before you began working on it. Wikipedia has benefited a great deal, even if the result is not what you would have liked to see.

Wikipedia has real, significant weaknesses, and you've identified a couple of them in your post on my talk page. Those flaws are surmountable in many cases, but they change the review process dramatically. One change is that credentials confer less authority. As a result, groups of editors that come together to improve or review articles tend to have a mixture of skills -- some are knowledgeable about the subject, some are good writers, and some may have weak skills in both areas. That last group is not forbidden to join in -- how could they be? Who would decide who was in that group? So Wikipedia has also had to develop processes that function as well as they can without reference to the quality of the participants. Those processes actually work better than you might expect, since few editors like to spend time on jobs they are not good at, but the result is there are limitations to the efficiency with which expert editors can contribute to collaborative reviews.

As a result, people with your kind of deep subject area knowledge in a technical domain tend to contribute here in one of three ways. One option is to avoid the featured article process, and use the review process built into the individual Wikiprojects (Wikiproject Chemistry, in your case, though I don't know how active that project's editors are). That way you get something much closer to the peer review you're used to. A second option is to simply improve articles and not worry about getting a review of any kind. This is certainly valuable to the encyclopedia, but I think it is difficult to do that for an extended time without any collaborative input or recognition of the value of your work. The third way is to work with the featured article process, but accept that it will be much slower, and will not necessarily lead to the article you initially envisaged. This requires collaboration, patience, and much more work. When it works it can result in very good articles, but it would not generally add scientific accuracy to the kind of article you write. It would add readability, and with care it can avoid introducing errors at the same time. I don't think this is the way you want to go, but I absolutely believe that it can be done, and can be effective.

I hope you'll stay here, editing and improving chemistry articles. I also hope that you'll work with Proteins on the points he made. If you ever decide you want to tackle FAC again, I'd be glad to work with you, time commitments permitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs) 13:28, December 7, 2008 (UTC)

Native speaker
Hallo Petergans, now I would need a little help. I am upgrading the two articles vanadium and scandium and it would be nice if you can have a look. I am not 100% sure what to improve to get it GA so the spelling and the grammar are the biggest points for me. Thanks--Stone (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Have a nice winter break!--Stone (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Peter, I took a look at User:Petergans/s and I agree that it would make a fine subject for a DYK. Do you have any fact from it that you think would be best suited? I thought perhaps some mention of the highly toxic nature of the gadolinium contrast used in MRIs could be a good DYK -- something along the lines of "Did you know that the gadolinium contrast agent often injected for MRI studies is extremely toxic, but is prevented from harming patients by DTPA, a complexing agent with a very high stability constant?" with stability constant pointing at your new article. Also please let me know if you would like help with the nomination process -- I'm not that familiar with it but I've done it once or twice. Mike Christie (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that very toxic gadolinium is often injected for contrast enhancement in MRI scans, but is prevented from harming patients by being administerd as a DTPA complex that has a very high stability constant?Petergans (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant thanks
Hello Petergans,

This little note is an expression of my gratitude for your invaluable labor on Acid dissociation constant. Without your help, the article would be in far less exemplary condition. Your insights have provided the foundation and structure for an encyclopedia article of superior quality.

Thanks, Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Stability constants of complexes
Only the first part of the hook is referenced with an inline citation. If that citation covers the whole hook it should be placed further down in the paragraph on the article. Also, I've seen multiple stretches of text without any refs whatsoever. Could you fix it and give each paragraph at least one? - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

V
I saw that you have been very active on Vanadium. I also have edited there on the coordination chem part, and if you sense anything that you dont like, then revert. I have thick skin and this is just a hobby. Please keep up the good work.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also did a part of Vanadium and one small story is now missing. The pig iron produced from titaniummagnetite yields iron with high vanadium content which ends up in the slag after oxidation of the iron to get steel. The slag is the main source for vanadium in china and russia. I had it in, not in the best words, but as a main source it should be in. Keep up working! Thanks. I wanted to nominate it for GAN soon.--Stone (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The newly edited section on chemistry is very nice indeed. I am skeptical that H3VO4 has a significant existence and the extent of the parallel to phosphates (e.g. the V10 business). And the idea that V compds are generically Lewis acidic because of the s2d3 configuration is commonly said but seems facile, e.g. comparison with later metals.  Many metals give M(H2O)4X2 things typically.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly correct that vanadic acid has limited existence. Look at acid dissociation constant for the gory details. The pKa2 value is an extrapolated value. The concentration of H3VO4 is rather low because pKa1 > pKa2 < pKa3. I ignored these complications for the sake of simplicity. Petergans (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for polyamino carboxylic acid
--Dravecky (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Decavanadate image
I have an image partially worked up from a published decavanadate structure, I just never got round to finishing it off. Happily will do this, have you any preference for the style,e.g. ball and stick as at Keggin structure, polyhedra as at heteropoly acid or a mixed picture as at molybdate - let me know and I'll finish doing it - all I have to do is remember how. By the way like your stability constants of complexes article- good stuff.--Axiosaurus (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * decavanadate image uploaded - see vanadate -regards --Axiosaurus (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stability constants of complexes
--Dravecky (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Metalloprotein
--Dravecky (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Vanadium
Hi Peter, I wanted to ask if you think we should try to get Vanadium through GAN? I like the article and with a little tuning it should be no problem. The FAC will be a lot more challenging but should also be managable. And thanks for the improvment of the scandium article! --Stone (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK The GAN is a lot better than the FAC, but I would like to get it a Good Article. So if any good serious scientific questions show up I will ask you for help and for the anoying part I will try to find solutions. Thanks--Stone (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I need your help! The two paragraphs you added to the chemistry section are unreferenced and the reviewer wants it to have references. It would be nice if you could provide it?

Thanks --Stone (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph that begins with "The correspondence between vanadate"
 * "Three factors are rather" paragraph
 * Thanks for the help! Its aGood Article!--Stone (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Heptamolybdate
There is an image of heptamolybdate- a part ball and stick/space fill effort an attempt to illustrate the close packed oxide structure, on the molybdate page- would that be suitable? I am off babysitting a lot at the moment (one of the benefits according to my daughter of having retired parents) so would only be able to amend this to suit if necessary next week. Regards --Axiosaurus (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is a man
Happy to help, contact me with details. Girl-razor (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:ATP protonation small.png
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the Copy to Wikimedia Commons template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:ATP protonation small.png. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Acetic.png
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the Copy to Wikimedia Commons template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Acetic.png. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Phosphite - wiki howler
Hi Pter, You list this as a Wiki howler- "The phosphite ion, HPO32− ", just being curious- why?--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is a hydrogen phosphite ion. phosphite would be PO33-.
 * OK you are going by the modeern "IUPAC" naming- fine- however HPO32− is traditionally termed phosphite, e.g. see Greenwood. Hydrogenphosphite is traditionally the acid phosphite.
 * Just one question- do you know of any compounds that contain the PO33- ion? --Axiosaurus (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not off-hand. I checked the pK values for phosphorous acid in water and they are about 1.1 and 6.3. From this I estimate the third pK to about 12-13 which might, just, be measurable. Perhaps the last proton can be removed in a more basic solvent such as liquid ammonia. However, since the usage is common, I withdraw the howler status. Petergans (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry barnstar
Moved to my main page Petergans (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Conductivity (electrolytic)
Hello Peter. I will have a look towards the end of the week, when I hope to have some time. Cheers. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:C2H4PG.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:C2H4PG.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Phosphoric3.png
File:Phosphoric3.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Phosphoric3.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Selection rule
Hello! Your submission of Selection rule at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)