Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Chemical Revolution

Chemical Revolution

 * Nominated on 08:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC); needs 3 votes by January 4.

The Chemical Revolution is one of the Big Ideas in the history of science; along with the Copernican Revolution and the Einsteinian Revolution, it was one of the few paradigmatic events on which the whole concept of paradigm shifts/scientific revolutions was based. Until a few hours ago, it didn't even have a stub. There isn't even anything about it in history of chemistry, but it definitely deserves its own (long, feature-standard) article.

Support:
 * 1) ragesoss 08:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I oppose this ridiculous nomination. I specialized in the history of science as an undergraduate and no one in that field uses this term when describing the history of chemistry.  "Chemical Revolution" smells too much of original research and may violate Wikipedia's No original research policy.  Some admin delete this article immediately, please! --Coolcaesar 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just do a quick Google of it. Current historians of science don't really use the term "revolution" at all, and generally try to distance themselves from Kuhn because the field has moved past that, but "chemical revolution" is still a term that has a specific meaning and a lot of material on it, and it absolutely should be in Wikipedia.  There is a lengthy Brittanica section on the chemical revolution within 'Lavoisier' and bits about it in several others, BTW.--ragesoss 23:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Couldn't this topic be conflated with the history of chemistry article, and the later be nominated instead? The history article does appear to be in need of some expansion. &mdash; RJH 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article could use some major expansion as well. But it's too long to qualify for COTW, isn't it?--ragesoss 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, ergo Article Improvement Drive would be my suggestion. :) &mdash; RJH 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for removal:

Not enough votes.--Urthogie 19:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)