Talk:Dissolution (chemistry)

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!

Copyedit

I did some preliminary work on cleaning this up, but there needs to be some additional referencing done before it can be completed. Canada Hky (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding tags to indicate entirety of article unsourced or poorly sourced

The article cites one inline citation.

There are on the order of 15 paragraphs, and tens of sentences, in 6 sections.

With this level of sourcing—only one sentence covered—we can say that the article is currently original work, and essentially unverifiable, and therefore in violation of WP:VERIFY AND WP:OR. Hence the tagging should remain over the article, and over the sections, until such time as things have thoroughly changed.

Moreover, the content that appears is not encyclopedic (see following and next Talk section). I was brought here because I wanted to wikilink from another article, which is impossible given the state of this—finding instead, a series of one sentence sections on dissolutions of different types of "compounds" that misapplied basic chemical concepts (failing to differentiate between element and molecule, states of matter, etc.), and stated reasons for dissolution not even worthy of a first form student reading.

Please discuss the sourcing matters here, and leave the tags until the article takes steps toward honoring WP policies and so becoming encyclopedic. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding dubious tags

…to sentence after sentence of naive, first form student content, regarding the dissolution of particular classes of compounds. Rubbish, all of it. See also the paragraph in the preceding section ("Moreover, the content that appears… .").

Please discuss the content quality matters here, and leave the tags until the article takes steps toward honoring WP policies and so becoming encyclopedic. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to rectify the situation over the coming week. This article is indeed appalling. -ArgentiumAlpha (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio question

The section Dissolution (chemistry)#Rate of dissolution was tagged for possible copy and paste from an article behind a paywall. I accessed the article and used the duplicate detector; the longest match I found (outside of citations) was "the united states pharmacopeia", and since United States Pharmacopeia is the title of a Wikipedia article, that's not exactly a smoking gun. If the text is more sophisticated than the surrounding text, it may have been written by a more sophisticated editor. It appears that this article was never reported at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, so I'm going to remove the tag. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The current article is pretty rough and has a lot of dubious content. In a perfect world, perhaps this article could stand on its own. But as a service to readers seeking decent scientific descriptions, I propose that we merge this article into solubility. Possibly some parts would be appropriate for corrosion. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with Solvation is more appropriate. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. Get rid of this article. This article is talking about solubility when dissolution has a subtle meaning; that of disappearing through entering into solution. The author thinks it means dissolving. 198.103.184.76 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]