Talk:Isothermal microcalorimetry

Edits

When you add the image of the glass ampoule, you used the parameter "framed". I don't believe there is such a parameter, you may have meant "frame". However, that parameter is rarely appropriate, in fact I had to look it up, as I have never seen it used before. I used the parameter "thumb" which uses a standard width. In my opinion, the image is far too large; the default if I recall correctly is 220 pixels wide, which makes sense for an image with is roughly square, or wider than high, but makes for a large image when it is tall and narrow. You can play with the size by replacing "thumb" with "nn px". I tried 150 px, but you might like a different value.

You added the parameter "none" which eliminates text flow, and produced what I thought was excessive white space.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

references

I'd like to help you improve your references. I see that you have quite a few. You may not know that there are templates for adding certain types of references, in particular, journals. It is a "gadget", I think, if you don't know what I'm talking about, let me know and I'll check into how to enable it for you. It make it easier, though still not easy to add references. In particular, it makes it easy to add a PMID. I added one to the Howell reference - your first reference. I did not remove yours, I renamed it "Howell old" , but I wanted to add one so you could see how it looks. Again, the main point is that it has an online link to the article.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I fully understand why you would want to work on the content, rather than the references. I will work on cleaning them up, because that is something I can do. I didn't want to do it without your permission. The formatting is very good, the person that worked with you knew what they were doing, but they were unaware that there are some things one can do (such as PMIDs) in Wikipedia, that are less useful in print.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

I am catching on a bit and have modified the size of Figs. 1 and 7 all by myself (!!) However, I need help with Fig. 2. In the section with which it is associated "Data Obtained by IMC" there is not one of these "[[File:etc. etc." links, and I do not know how to create one. Please help. Many thanks in advance, and thanks too for working on my references. DanDaniels (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Fig 2" to what I hope is figure 2 and moved it to the Section "Data Obtained by IMC". I'll work on improving some of the refs in the morning. I like the size of the ampoule much better now.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 02:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

Help! Figure 1 lost its caption. I got it back, and got it over on the right side, where I would like it to be. HOWEVER if I try to resize it using nn px instead of thumb, I lose the caption and placement. DanDaniels (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, according to Wikipedia:Extended image syntax, you can have a caption with "frame" or "thumb" but not otherwise. There must be a way to do what you want, let me check into it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had a brain freeze. One can have both "thumb" and "nn px". I tried a little smaller, but it made the caption look odd, you can play with it now.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I will fool with it. DanDaniels (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

At some time, you will want to glance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section]. In short, not all articles have lede sections but all good ones do. It is appropriate, if not common, to wait to write the lede when the rest of the article is close to finished, as it is intended to be a summary of the main points. If that was always your plan, carry on, if not we should discuss further.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A lead section sounds like a fine idea--like an abstract to a journal paper. I will write one. I have been working hard on modifying content in the last couple of days and think the article is now in pretty good shape. I will draft a lead section tomorrow. DanDaniels (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate footnote resolved, I think

I'm 99% certain that the footnote following "IMC could detect oxidation-related heat and quantified an oxidation rate of ca. 1% per year in irradiated UHMWPE at room temperature in air (Charlebois et al. 2003)"

in the stability section is the same as footnote 11, but please make sure I didn't miss something.

In both cases, I believe the proper footnote is

Charlebois, SJ (2003). "Isothermal Microcalorimetry: An Analytical Technique for Assessing the Dynamic Chemical Stability of UHMWPE". Biomaterials. 24: 91–296. PMID 12419630. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you are correct. Many, many thanks for your hard work on the references. DanDaniels (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A hint so you can see why I did something

I made a couple minor changes, plus some additional foot note changes. In general, if you click on the history tab, you will see the list of changes made. I always use an edit summary, so you can see why I did it. If my edit summary is insufficient, just ask.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint and the improvements. I actually got into the page history on an emergency basis earlier today. I had been doing some editing and discovered I had deleted Figure 1. Managed to get it back from an old version. I am no Wiki-pro, but am getting better. DanDaniels (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede or Lead

I have done a Lead and an Info Box. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions. Also, I tried to do the "header" but had no idea how to do it correctly. Or does it only appear when the page goes live? DanDaniels (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you think it is ready, you will click the down arrow near the top of the page (right side) and select "Move".

That will bring up a dialog box. In the first box choose "article" in the second "Isothermal microcalorimetry" in the reason box, something like "now ready for main space", leave the check boxes all checked, then click on "move page"

That will, among other things, add the proper title.

Or ask me to do it --SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the lede is very good. I'm somewhat conflicted, as I like to write lists as lists, and it is slightly more preferred (I think, from observation, not from written rules), that flowing text in the lede is referable to numbered lists. However, this is already better than about 95% of articles. Once finished, if you would like to look into polishing it, I can get you in touch with the people who do Good Article reviews, who will have suggestions on style. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the compliment on the lede. I will take <95% of articles. I have switched to running text in the lede, and used italics to emphasize the beginning sentence of each of the two paragraphs containing numbered items. DanDaniels (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Growth and reproduction

In the Microbiology section, what is the plan for the parenthetical "Growth and reproduction". Are you planning a separate section, or is this intended to be a link to another existing article?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for catching this. I fixed it. It was meant to be, and is now a link to an existing article, Bacterial growth. DanDaniels (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Submission ?

Stephen Philbrick - I have just finished going through the IMC article and made further corrections and improvements. I think it is ready to submit. However, I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to whether it is ready. Submission does not mean I will stop editing the article. But I have promised colleagues for months that it is coming, and it now seems good enough to let them take a look and use it to inform people about IMC. Please let me know whether you agree. DanDaniels (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded here--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical "See" notes should not be used

The many parenthetical "(See XXX)" notes need to be converted to properly formatted citations or if they refer to other WP articles the links should be incorporated into the actual body text itself. A WP article must never directly address or instruct the reader - never tell readers to "see this" or "read that". Roger (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I will fix this. DanDaniels (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Figures in the article

How do I make a clickable link to an figure within this article? DanDaniels (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]