Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current Chemistry Collaboration of the Month is Evaporation.
Every month a different chemistry-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked.
Please improve the article any way you can.
Shortcut:
WP:ChemCOTM

Every month a Chemistry Collaboration of the Month will be picked using this page. The goal of each collaboration is to take an undeveloped or underdeveloped chemistry-related topic and improve it over the course of the month, ideally to the level of a featured article. At the end of each month, the topic with the most support votes will be selected for the next collaboration.

Any registered wikipedian can nominate an article, and can vote for the nominated articles. Voting also indicates interest in contributing to the monthly collaboration. At beginning of each month, the votes will be tallied, and the winner will be promoted for the month to potential contributors.

Collaborations

Article Creation and
Improvement Drive
Core topics
Good articles
Spanish translation
Arts & entertainment

Alternative Music
Architecture
Cinema
Novels
Games & sports

Football (soccer)
Formula One
Gaming (stubs)
MMO (video game genre)
Rugby union
Tennis
Geography & places

Australia
Chicago
Hong Kong
India
NZ
Government & politics

Military history
Taxation
U.S. Congress
Religion

Anglicanism
Catholic
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Orthodox Judaism Rabbis
Mormon
Science & technology

Aviation
Birds
Chemistry
Dinosaurs
Fungi
Medicine
Molecular and
Cellular Biology
Science
U.S. Roads
Miscellaneous

Inactive collaborations

v • d • e

If possible, select articles that interest a wider community of editors, rather than those that attract only a small number of people.

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] Previous Collaborations of the Month

[edit] Current Collaboration of the Month

[edit] Evaporation

Nominated 2006-08-14

Support:

  1. GregRM 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Walkerma 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

[edit] Selecting the next Collaboration

[edit] Nominating an article

To add a new nomination, please:

  1. Copy the template below
  2. Paste it at the bottom of the list of candidates
  3. Add a comment for why the article should be nominated.
  4. Please preview your addition to make it sure all information is properly filled in and the links are working.
====[[article name with double-brackets surrounding it]]====   
:''Nominated {{subst:CURRENTDATE}}''  
    
'''Support:'''
# ~~~~
    
'''Comments:'''  
*[a short description explaining why the article should be the Chemistry Collaboration of the Month] - ~~~~

[edit] Voting on nominated articles

  • Only registered users should vote.
  • Please vote for as many of the following candidates as you like.
  • To enter your votes, simply edit the appropriate sections and insert a new line with "# ~~~~". This will add your username and a time stamp in a new numbered list item.
  • Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result, as the winner is simply the one with the most support votes (see approval voting).

[edit] Templates

[edit] Nominations for next Collaboration of the Month

[edit] Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from June 2006

This one requires a bit of explanation, so please hear me out. This old cleanup category contains 85 articles, 73 of which are chemistry stubs. All of these are somewhat neglected, containing no information other than "<foo> is an inorganic compound" and a standard table listing melting point, solubility, etc. The aim of this collaboration is to add just a few sentences to each of these articles, explaining what the chemical does and what it's used for, and possibly where it is found or who first synthesized it. No lengthy treatises necessary, just a little bit of explanation and content. 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Support:

  1. >Radiant< 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (not a chemist but willing to help)
  2. Dirk Beetstra T C 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I like the proposal: good scope, doable, and appealing. I'll join in when COTM. Much better than vague suggestions about other might do with article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals

Nominated 2006-10-20

Support:

  1. - Jack (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Although technically an article on law, this piece of legislature will have enormous reprocussions for the chemical industry throughout the whole of the European Union. Chemists everywhere must come to learn exactly what this will entail, as it will come to concern us all in the next 5 years. - Jack (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The title threw me in the wrong direction: this is about REACH! I (and probably many other chemical people) didn't recognize it. I'd love to see some clarity into what REACH really and formally requires, and what not. Is this doable? Are there people out there who really understand it and can explain it logically? I haven't met these people yet. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Catalysis

Nominated 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Rifleman 82 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Article is in an appalling state for such an important concept! --Rifleman 82 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • appalling? please explain appalling V8rik 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This was the state of the article when I nominated it for the CotM. I felt that the article was extremely brief and did not cover the many facets of catalysis, thus appalling. Later, I checked the discussion pages, and merged the information from catalyst. I think it's much more complete now, but the second half of the article (all after biocatalysis, inclusive) can be much improved. --Rifleman 82 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with V8rik - catalysis looks good to me, by prevailing standards. It is the sub-articles on catalysis that merit attention - I would recommend that the focus be on economically significant ones - Ziegler-Natta catalysis, hydroformylation, hydrogenation, transfer hydrogenation, nitrogen fixation, epoxidation. Some of these are in rough shape. These are the areas where people are being employed, money is being made, and where the masses should know more about. IMHO.--Smokefoot 18:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Could not agree more, the secondary articles are just as much important. I appeal to everyone currently contributing to the distillation article to have a look at secondary articles such as fractional distillation and theoretical plates as well (many do). If I may point to an appalling article in my view it is enzyme kinetics: a 40 KB monster too long to read mainly because it cannibalizes its secondary articles such as Michaelis-Menten kinetics. If you would just scrap everything in enzyme kinetics already covered in the secondary articles you would perhaps end up with a very elegant 15 KB overview article representing enzyme kinetics. Perhaps for one of the future collaborations we should nominate an entire category and not focus too much on a single article, so lets say next collaboration of the month: Category:Catalysts V8rik 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liquid

Nominated 2007-02-02
Support
  1. Walkerma 06:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Comments

Pretty basic topic, surely we can do a lot better than this? (Note, I probably can't work seriously on it myself until May). Walkerma 06:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cohesion

Nominated 2007-04-01

Support:

  1. Gabycs 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This article is extremely important in many aspects of science. For such a basic topic, its length does not make it seem so! WikiProjects have volunteered to expand it, but they haven't really carried their promises out. We can do so much better! - Gabycs 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/e/Wikipedia%7EChemistry_Collaboration_of_the_Month_e6eb.html"