User talk:ChE Fundamentalist
Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit]
Welcome, ChE Fundamentalist! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 15,098,620 users
Hello, ChE Fundamentalist, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Nathan2055, one of the many editors here, and I hope you decide to stay here and help contribute to Wikipedia.
|
Here are some links to get you started: |
And here are some Do's and Don'ts:
|
|
If you need further help, you can: |
Or even: |
Alternatively, drop a note on my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
If you enjoy being here, there are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your name on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post; this will automatically insert your username, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
As always though, the best way to learn about something is to experience it. Go and explore Wikipedia, the more time you spend on it, the more you'll know, and don't forget to have some fun!
Sincerely, Nathan2055 (talk) July 26, 2011. To see your edit count click Fundamentalist&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia here Español · Deutsch · Français · Italiano · עברית · Русский · 日本語 · Polski · فارسی
Nathan2055talk - review 00:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Physical chemistry
[edit]Great. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing feedback. I'm still learning. ChE Fundamentalist (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I thought that your version was very wordy, but I probably was not careful with my English. One recommendation is to organize the article after the main headings guided by the Table of Contents of a modern dominant textbook like Atkins. Otherwise you risk WP:synthesis, which is a real no-no here. Many new editors risk it by just launching into essays. Another advantage of the TOC approach is that the organization of an established text inspires sectioning, which greatly improves readability and editability. No one wants to read a long section.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. It was wordy, with too many run-ons especially, and I wasn't aware of WP:synthesis. I like the idea of the TOC approach, but I don't believe it will work for a non-specialist article on physical chemistry. The modern textbooks aren't always representative of the historical scope of the subject. A synthesis of multiple sources will be necessary, but I'll try to make sure that the synthesis itself can be referenced. ChE Fundamentalist (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't advice but opinion. My guess is that the 99% of readers of the article on physical chemistry are students who want to know the scope of the subject to plan their coursework or prepare for examinations. Hence the TOC approach, and then you can use subsections with . My guess is that student readers simply will not read about the history of the field since they are not tested on it. Setting aside thermo which is always the focus of such a course, a more challenging aspect is balancing old-school physical chemistry (colloids, catalysis, kinetics, echem) vs the stuff we teach (stat mech, quantum, spectroscopy). Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. It was wordy, with too many run-ons especially, and I wasn't aware of WP:synthesis. I like the idea of the TOC approach, but I don't believe it will work for a non-specialist article on physical chemistry. The modern textbooks aren't always representative of the historical scope of the subject. A synthesis of multiple sources will be necessary, but I'll try to make sure that the synthesis itself can be referenced. ChE Fundamentalist (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I thought that your version was very wordy, but I probably was not careful with my English. One recommendation is to organize the article after the main headings guided by the Table of Contents of a modern dominant textbook like Atkins. Otherwise you risk WP:synthesis, which is a real no-no here. Many new editors risk it by just launching into essays. Another advantage of the TOC approach is that the organization of an established text inspires sectioning, which greatly improves readability and editability. No one wants to read a long section.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!