Talk:Chemical Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The phrase "Chemical Revolution" is still in use by some historians of science. If it's often not used the article should be more specific about who does/doesn't use it. Maestlin 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I added that comment after reading the COTW for this article.--XenoNeon (converse) 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The new edit is a start, but there's still a long way to go. To be complete, the article should explain when the term came into use (was Kuhn involved?), when it stopped being common terminology among historians of chemistry, and point towards some of the relevant scholarship. I cannot answer the questions myself, but hopefully someone will read these notes someday who can. Maestlin 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why dyou think it's a stub?--XenoNeon (converse) 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call it a stub, though it might qualify as one. I pointed out several issues that are raised by the bald statement: "Chemical Revolution is an uncommon term in modern day. The term is often only used by chemists and other figures in science." When I read something like that, I want to know why it was an important term at one time, why it stopped being important, and who was involved in making the changes. I think it's analogous to a scientific theory. If I read an encyclopedia article claiming that physicists no longer use the aether theory, that's not enough. The article should say a little about why they abandoned it, maybe describe a key experiment or two. Right now, the article on ChemRev just makes an unsubstantiated generalization. That's fine for a start, but someone out there can do better. Hence my comments. Maestlin 00:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And it retains a stub. The edit I added provided a basis, and this article, having failed it's COTW, definitely needs to be an article which the HistSci project can work on. That edit, though unspecific, is meant to provide a basis.

You misinterpretated the comment I made. You were saying how the article can be improved, and that comment was to say 'And it is a stub for those reasons', I was not asking you why you thought it was a stub.--XenoNeon (converse) 20:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions are sometimes hard to spot on electronic communication. Of course I know it is not a complete article yet. Some editors make suggestions on talk pages of articles, hoping to give some inspiration to later editors who know more about the subject. That's all I was doing. I was not grousing. Maestlin 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)