User talk:Wimvandorst
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Contents |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Featured Picture | |
 |
|
| Signpost | |
| Volume 4, Issue 23 — 2008-06-02 | |
 Notice board |
|
|
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
| Please leave a new message | |
[edit] my WikiCommons identity
Herewith I assert that I am the same user as commons:user:Wimvandorst. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Proposed deletion of Gordon Aylward
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gordon Aylward, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MBisanz talk 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out this opportunity for improvement. I took the bait. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Reassessment
Hi Wim
I saw your recent post at WT:CHEM. I've gone through some articles as you've suggested, and I think the following may not be deserving of a stub-class:
- meta-Chloroperoxybenzoic acid: agree, Start now
- Butanone: has only one section and that isn't even chemistry: keep at Stub
- Caesium_hydroxide: not even any section: keep at stub
- Diethanolamine: Not enough chemistry for a start
- Polybutadiene: agree, Start now
- Trisodium phosphate: agree, Start now. Although very meagre in no of sections, there's enough chemistry is the paragraph to warrant Start.
Would you like to reassess them? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rifleman, the important point to notice is that I'm assessing against the WP:Chem assessment rules, and not giving a general article assessment. Indeed the articles that you point out are generally speaking beyond stub status, but regarind the Chemicals content, most are very stubby. Yet, I upgraded three on your recommendations. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks for the clarification. Our assessment rules is something I've seen before yet forgotten about. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bisphenol A assessment
Hi Wimvandorst. I noticed that you recently updated the assessment of Bisphenol A from start class to B. I'm wondering if you can tell me what it would take to get it up to A class. I've been around WP for a while, working on and improving articles that interest me, but I've never paid much attention to article ratings nor I have ever before made a specific effort to move an article up the quality scale. But anyways, I've put a bit of work into this article recently, so I'm thinking it might be nice to get it to A class if possible. Please let me know what you think it needs. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Yilloslime, I was off-line for some time, so sorry that I didn't answer any sooner. The article assessment work that I do is specifically for WP:Chem, so there you can find the improvement suggestions, e.g., in it's assessment rules or in example articles, already A-Class. Specifically for the Bisphenol A article, I would recommend:
- more chemistry, notably in the Synthesis section. Better even to improve it up to a full Chemistry section.
- The Use section could do with fleshing out
- Production numbers (tonnes per annum-line data, etc)
- Adding information to a new Safety section, providing handling recommendation and such. The other health info could fall under such a section too.
If you would like to more detailed recommendations, feel free to ask. I've added some script-derived info to the talk page too. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks for the advice. Production numbers are already in there--is there something more you are looking for? As for chemistry, I'm currently without ChemDraw, so I can't add much of anything useful. However, the most import rxn of BPA, at least terms of production volume, is its polymerization into polycarbonate plastic, and that rxn is already covered in great detail over at Polycarbonate, so it's seems redundant to go into detail on it in the BPA article. How should this be handled? Thanks, Yilloslime (t) 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The notable missing thing is chemistry! Much more can be said about the chemical (and physical) properties of the product. The formation of polycarbonate is just one of the possible reaction products. Production data is IMHO rather limited. You could (if data is available, of course): is it growing, declining, why, two which market sold (or captive use), how did it do over the years, how much into which application, etc. Also the other applications. All in all, there's a lot you can add. Go ahead, be bold. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC).
