Talk:Intermolecular forces: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Paul Wormer
No edit summary
imported>Robert W King
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages9}}
{{subpages}}


{{WPimport}}
{{WPimport}}

Revision as of 18:21, 13 November 2007

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Non-covalent forces between atoms and molecules; often synonymous with Van der Waals forces. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Chemistry and Physics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English
Fountain pen.jpg
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
I worked on this article on Wikipedia, and intend to maintain and develop it on the Citizendium.
Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

I was in the process of completely rewriting this WP article when I got fed up with WP and decided to stop contributing. I will continue here. --Paul Wormer 06:07, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Excellent, and welcome!

Notice, we do have to keep that "Article is from Wikipedia?" checkbox checked if there is any content taken from Wikipedia, for which you are not responsible. --Larry Sanger 11:15, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Finished

I finished this article. Maybe I will change a few details later. At this point in time every word in it is written by me, about 80% for WP and about 20% for CZ. What status number goes with that?--Paul Wormer 10:15, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I changed it to a 1 on the metadata page. Now you need another editor to take a look at it to work towards approval.. you could try the mailing lists and see what happens. Let me know. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:55, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

workgroups

I just added the biology workgroup. Was there a strong reason for not including it? Chris Day (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

No, but I thought that the article was perhaps too physical/mathematical to be of interest to biologists.--Paul Wormer 02:30, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
I think you're sending the right message that using the physical equations is important to really understand these interactions. Gone are the days when biologists can survive with no math. Besides it is possible to read between the equations.
On the other hand, despite the fact these forces are important in biology, there is little reference to biological situations. There should probably be a related article that discusses this from a more biological perspective rather than trying to make this one lose it's focus. Chris Day (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
I couldn't agree more, the only problem is, I cannot write it. I'm completely ignorant about biology and biochemistry. --Paul Wormer 03:04, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

WP criticism

The WP equivalent of this article (which has about 80% overlap with the present CZ article) received the following perceptive, gently phrased, comments:

== This article is terribly useless. ==
I think I fell asleep while attempting to read it. People aren't coming to an article about intermolecular forces to see only deep physical theory and accompanying formulae while something as simple as a table comparing types of intermolecular forces is missing. Hell, there's only one mention of kj/mol, and even the most basic chemistry 101 book will tell you the relative strengths of different kinds of intermolecular forces. If an article is going to be chock full of higher-level physics, then it damn well better have the basic, encyclopedic information nailed down.--74.61.4.8 21:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of my high esteem for 74.61.4.8 (in contrast to my opinion of 74.61.4.9, who is a s/d of a b.), I took this to heart and introduced some numerical examples. --Paul Wormer 07:50, 21 September 2007 (CDT)