User talk:RLM0518

Greetings from the online ambassador

Hello

Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy your time here and choose to stay. I am an online ambassador for your course, so I will be available to help you out with Wikipedia editing, but not in person. If you want my attention you can email me at Special:EmailUser/Graeme Bartlett or talk to me at User talk:Graeme Bartlett. I am from Australia, in the timezone which is 11 hours ahead of UTC, so I will be awake while you sleep. I have been making some chemistry articles myself lately such as 2,4-Dinitroanisole and borinic acid. Since you are actually studying Chemistry I expect you will be much more knowledgeable than me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on Talk:Physical organic chemistry

Specifically, that which has been copied from the page:

Hello. I am a graduate student at the University of Michigan. We are editing Wikipedia articles related to physical organic chemistry as a class project. My partner and I are editing and improving the general "Physical Organic Chemistry" page. Our sandbox will be turned in October 28, 2013. Our sites will be peer reviewed by November 4, 2013, and the graded sites will go live on November 11, 2013. Here is a link to the sandbox for this project.

RLM0518 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Your sandbox looks promising; however, I feel the need to point out that it does not conform with style guides and does not have intrinsically consistent or coherent (that is, there are issues throughout the article itself, where one part does not agree with another part, if you will; for instance, your referencing is inconsistent). Please review the Manual of Style and so on for the norms used here. A significant issue is your excessive capitalisation, not only in headers but throughout the body's prose.

Furthermore, I should also highlight that the referencing needs work; a more careful, indeed meticulous, treatment is due. For instance, reference no. 1 and 3 (as at this edit) are identical. Some of your references are less than ideal and even suspect.

Again, welcome; the pro forma welcome is below:

Hello, RLM0518, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Best of luck with this project of yours. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hello,

I went through your section and made many edits to improve the language flow. I also corrected some errors in word choice ("on" rather than "an", etc.).

Jacob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisoxo (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Physical organic chemistry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Integration, Induction, Phosphorous and Bases

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Physical organic chemistry

RLM0518, your article on Physical organic chemistry was nominated by ChemLibrarian for Did You Know (DYK), a section of Wikipedia's main page that features new or newly expanded articles.

The nomination has hit a snag, in that DYK's rule of thumb is that each paragraph should have at least one inline source citation; you can see the comments on the nomination template linked to in the title of this section. I'm hoping you can supply those citations.

ChemLibrarian, as nominator, should be the one to handle this (by supplying the sourcing or by writing a message much like this one), but apparently didn't see the original request on December 12, and hasn't edited since December 20. I notice that you made an edit to your Nicolai Lehnert article much more recently, on December 29, so I'm hoping you might be able to handle this.

I had originally allowed until the end of the year for this issue to be fixed, but since I see you are still editing here, I'm happy to give the standard one week to allow you to respond. If you need a little more time to find the references, that's fine, but we will need to hear something from you (or ChemLibrarian) within the week for the article to remain under consideration. (Also, if you don't plan to add the source citations, it would help to let us know.) Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nearly two weeks since you posted to the nomination, and I see no signs of work on the article. Unless we hear from you by January 21, two weeks from your most recent post, I'm afraid we'll have to start the process to close it as unsuccessful—it's currently over two months old, and our oldest nomination. I hope you will be able to return to this article before then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nicolai Lehnert (January 5)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicolai Lehnert.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Anup Mehra ^✈ 12:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Physical organic chemistry

On 22 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Physical organic chemistry, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the term physical organic chemistry was coined by Louis Hammett in 1940 when he used the phrase as a title for his textbook? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Physical organic chemistry. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Biodegradable polymer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to ATP, Aerobic, Anaerobic, Synthetic and Sterilized

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicolai Lehnert concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicolai Lehnert, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicolai Lehnert

Hello RLM0518. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Nicolai Lehnert".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicolai Lehnert}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In re the lauded POC article

I am sorry to communicate that I do not share the non-specialist's opinions regarding the POC article that was created (unless, by chance it has regressed since the original voluminous work was done).

I turned to it recently to use it as a training document for undergraduate students, and, while interesting, found it unusable. Wikipedia veracity and trustworthiness are based in the verifiability of its content. UM is a fine school, and your training will be first rate; but all of that is immaterial. Consider the fact that WP allows all the same privileges of content addition and removal to a chemistry hobbyist without even undergraduate training, and with limited English language ability. It is for this reason, in wishing to never have to recognize formal expertise of its contributors (including you or I), that WP demands that all content be sourced, and verifiable.

There are at least five significant reasons for my having concluded that the article is currently unusable:

1. Broad swaths of text lack any sourcing whatsoever (violating WP:VERIFY policies).
2. Textbooks repeatedly appear as inline citations without any indicated page numbers, making these further sources unverifiable; I note that the Anslyn text even originally appeared as "name=Anslyn no pages", for its 16 appearances as an inline citation (!).
3. Long stretches of content appear, as if being paraphrased from a good teaching text, but then, rather than that authority being cited, a primary source or two (primary research results) are given—where the clear stated WP policy is to limit primary sources (e.g., to providing examples), and only after concepts are derived/established from solid secondary sources (reviews, text and monograph pages, etc. The Semmelhack citation appearing as the only source at the end of its long paragraph is an example of this non-scholarly approach. And the notion that, per long paragraph in each subsection, 1-2 inline citations of its various types—mostly pageless books—are sufficient to make the content of the Spectroscopy, spectrometry, and crystallography section verifiable is simply misguided. [The reason for this again lies with the expected lack of expertise of WP editors: we are never to decide on the believability of primary research results, but only to report what other experts have written, in good secondary sources, like Chem. Rev., the ACS monograph series, Angew. Chemie reviews, etc.]

Specifically, there are 28 refs, and 50 inline citations, where of the refs, only 3 are reviews, 4 times as many are primary sources, and ten are books. These text sources would add to the reviews, and balance out the primary sources. Unfortunately, 8 of the books are without page numbers (80% of all books), and (since there are many repeat references to books), this makes 20 of the 50 inline citations (40% of all) unverifiable. In addition to these, there are other issues, some scholarly (overemphasis of some kinds of research and of some research labs) as well as mundane (redundant appearance of citations, like Issacs, Keller, etc., some now remedied).

4. Moreover, spot checking the references has made clear there are even deeper issues. At times, very broad, general, somewhat superficial statements are made, and attributed to a particular source (often a pageless text). Checking of that source subsequently indicates that it does not support the text as presented. A couple of "for instances" are all that time will allow:

(a) Forget that the phrases "solutions for atoms" and "solutions for molecules, such as methane" and "the true electronic structure" used in the Quantum chemistry section are just poor chemistry writing (and I am hoping not yours); the explicit claims—that ab initio computed properties for the methane molecule "provide exact representations of their electronic structure which are unobtainable by experimental methods" and that "the... electronic structure of 1,3-butadiene shows delocalized π-bonding molecular orbitals stretching through the entire molecule" are simply not statements that can be sourced, with their loose generality, to the fine Atkins textbooks that were cited (old book with page number, new book without page number); and so these citations were removed, ^{[citation needed]} tags replacing them, and Atkins was moved to Further reading. Atkins does discuss these molecules, and there is important information from him to report—see the pages listed in the Further reading—and so there is a semblance of veracity in these sentences (loose language notwithstanding), but, the statements made are so far from the source as to make citing Atkins near to dishonest. This writing is extrapolation, and is either from another source, or it is editorial originality.

(b) The statement that Hammett coined the article title term (which may indeed be true), first, cannot be sourced to Hammett (on principle!), and second, cannot seemingly be sourced to George Hammond, who does not actually come out and quite say "Hammett coined..." as this article does. Re-read what Hammond wrote—a great article, by the way, a great find—and if you are the source of this sentence, you will understand that Hammond's statements in the 1997 PAC article regarding Hammett do not match those in the WP article. Bottom line, the text is inaccurate to these sources, and so a ^{[citation needed]} tag was added, to call for a source that actually reports Hammett's coining (so back to the drawing board for that).

5. Otherwise, generally, the "pitch" of this article is uneven, sometimes reporting the latest research results, but often reading like watered down textbook material (lacking detail and nuance, with far too much generalization, and so inaccurate, as the quantum chem writing above)—as if much of it was written without sources close at hand to paraphrase. [Non-experts and even younger experts, who lack experience and scope, must "sail close", keeping rich sources on hand, when they approach encyclopedic writing on technical subjects.] This reinforces the appearance of this article as someone's essay effort, where the writing was done fast, and loose, and only then was effort given to looking back and deciding how to place citations into it.

On the whole, while there is some "good stuff" here, the article just cannot be recommended. Right now I am giving it a superficial "once-over"... removing redundant citations, one-by-one noting the books without page numbers, etc. After this, the real work begins. An expert needs to go over it and determine the degree to which the outline is acceptable—I would argue that it is not completely sound. Then, within each section, the experts again need to decide what is and is not of significant import to include. Only then should the writing resume.

Why call all this to your attention? Simply put, because you are a scholar in training. We used to hear, and later also, say—I did my graduate training at UChicago, under G Closs, NC Yang, J Fried, etc.—that every student deserves a good exam. Likewise, every student deserves the honest truth about their endeavours. I cannot know how much of what appears in the article is yours (is still yours), but to the extent that the foregoing critique is relevant to your work, please, take it as a well-meaning offering that there is good work, and not-so-good, and with regard to this article, the real good work remains to be done.

Best of luck at UM, and in your career. Cheers. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]