Talk:Johannes Diderik van der Waals/Draft

Approval nomination

I'm no scientist but in my reading this clearly needs to be nominated for approval.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:11, 1 October 2007 (CDT)

I agree. I made some minor changes, and I wonder if it would be possible to add references to the major works of him, so that people actually can find those if they want. I moved some stuff to subpages, and I need some definitions of terms in the related articles section, which could use probably a few more. Kim van der Linde 07:05, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

I added a few references to Van der Waals' major works and their translations.--Paul Wormer 08:40, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

I added references to the bibliography subpage, almost simultaneously with Kim adding the same references as footnotes to the main text. (It is most likely no coincidence that we added the same references, I got them from the site of the Dutch Academy and I bet Kim did the same). Now the question is, do we keep both sets of references? Or do we keep one? If the latter which one: footnotes or bibliography? Is there a CZ policy on this?--Paul Wormer 03:55, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

In-article footnotes would be for works you are relying on to craft the article, I'd think. The Bibliography subpage here could contain all of JDvdW's works plus whatever relevant scholarly work about him you deem fitting. Stephen Ewen 05:24, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

I can see the value of the references to the actual articles, but it can also be done by referring to the bibliography. I agree with you to include the sources that were used for making this article. Kim van der Linde 15:54, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

I think the references have to be improved before approval - currently, the in-text ones are all in the first paragraph of Scientific_work, while the rest of that section goes unreferenced, as does the biography part. For the latter, I would suggest to refer to the biography at the Nobel site which seems to have been used as a source anyway (see Johannes Diderik van der Waals/External_Links), as is also evident from the phrase "thesis ... put him at once in the foremost rank of physicists". For the former, I suggest to add the relevant references to the cited work of Andrews, Dewar, Kamerlingh Onnes and Laplace. I removed the ToApprove template but am willing to support approval once the references have been updated. Daniel Mietchen 17:11, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

Are you sure you want references to Andrews (around 1860), Dewar (around 1890), Kamerlingh Onnes (mostly in Dutch, around 1900) and Laplace (mostly Latin/French, around 1800)? I composed this biography mainly from a Dutch book given in the biography, a site of the KNAW (Royal Dutch Soc.) given in the external links, the Nobel site (also in the links) and a Dutch 20 volume encyclopedia (not listed). The biographical facts in these sources overlap and agree. Would you like me to write: "J.D. was born in Leiden", see Refs. 1,2,3, and 4? I have here the 15th ed. of the EB, there is not a single reference in the article on van der Waals (which, btw, is under "Waals" with a redirect under "van der Waals"). --Paul Wormer 17:44, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

I agree with Paul that the references are adequate. Daniel seems not to challenge any of the points that are made--but please keep in mind CZ is not Wikipedia, which is a nest of distrust and fear of experts so that every fact has to be referenced.Richard Jensen 18:08, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

In my eyes, references do not just serve as a currency of mistrust. Instead, I perceive them as very useful from a didactic point of view and as an incentive for learners to dig deeper. Anyway, I added references to Andrews and Laplace and have no objections to approval any more. -- Daniel Mietchen 10:41, 24 April 2008 (CDT)

I won't remove the references to Andrews and Laplace, but to me they seem out of place in an article on the person Van der Waals. In articles on criticality and viscosity they would fit. In my opinion wikilinks to Andrews and Laplace would have been more than enough in the present article (BTW, how certain are you that Laplace denies the molecule concept in the article that you quote?). Kamerlingh-Onnes is a different matter, because he recognized in several articles his debt to Van der Waals, who was the theoretician behind his experiments.--Paul Wormer 12:01, 24 April 2008 (CDT)

I'm fine with moving the references over to the other articles once they exist, but for the moment, I prefer to have them in here, so as to keep the flow nutritious. As for the Laplace reference, I had put it in because I knew it as the one relevant to capillarity. I hadn't checked back what he stated there about the existence of molecules, though. When I did that now, I found that, right on the first page of the first of the two supplements to book X, he mentioned "attraction de ... molécules" as being the cause of "l'action réfringente des corps sur la lumière". He thus did not deny the concept of molecules. I also browsed the document (which, unfortunately, is not searchable) for mentions of molecular motion but found none so far. So I rephrased that passage acordingly. -- Daniel Mietchen 07:41, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Two things to notice here. 1) There are a few edits that were not included in the approval as they were not included at the time that Richard Jensen placed the approval. 2)Daniel placed a 'removal' notice on the metadata template that I had not noticed (and never seen before - so this is new to me) that removed the approval tag on April 23rd. SInce his edits are not included, I suspect there might be some further instructions for what needs to be done. My feeling is that the approval should be removed unless both Richard and Daniel agree to this approval (and of course Paul can make it three). I will let each of you take a look and let me know if you want me to keep the approval in place. --D. Matt Innis

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Changes were made and Daniel explicitly removed his removal and said he has no objections now. I approve all the little copyedits.Richard Jensen 13:25, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Yes, I approve the current version. -- Daniel Mietchen 03:35, 30 April 2008 (CDT)

Good news then. I'll leave it as it is. --D. Matt Innis 07:36, 30 April 2008 (CDT)

Error in lead-in of approved article

Somebody introduced a serious error in the approved version of this article.

Explanation:   By definition, two or more stable (chemically bound) molecules constitute a van der Waals molecule if they are bound to each other by van der Waals forces. These forces are weak and therefore a vdW molecule is rather unstable (that is, a vdW molecule can only exist at very low temperature and will decompose at higher temperature into its stable constituents).

Now, the third sentence of the leadin reads:

His name is also associated with van der Waals forces, which are forces between stable molecules (van der Waals molecules), i.e. (small) molecular clusters bound by intermolecular forces, ...

This sentence says that stable molecules are called van der Waals molecules (quod non) and furthermore the i.e. clause is dangling, what does it refer to? --Paul Wormer 09:40, 1 May 2008 (CDT)

Hi All, no problem, this is a good example of a copyedit that makes content changes depending on the sentence structure. Once everyone has had a chance to look it over and decide on the appropriate change (if necessary), let me know and I can step in at that point. --D. Matt Innis 10:09, 1 May 2008 (CDT)

The error mentioned above (stating that stable molecules are called vdW molecules) is still there.--Paul Wormer 10:35, 4 May 2008 (CDT)

Paul, since this edit has a 'content' component, I can't just change it without some input from the editor whose name is on the article... check with Richard and see what he wants to do. The other alternative is to get two other editors to agree with you. While your at it, you might be able to get Richard to agree with all your draft changes and we can just do it all at the same time as version 1.1 I'll keep an eye out for your decision. --D. Matt Innis 16:05, 4 May 2008 (CDT)

yes I'm happy to re-approve...it's a very good article. Richard Jensen 03:30, 5 May 2008 (CDT)

The error was mine - sorry and thanks to Paul for pointing it out. The current phrasing is correct, and the parantheses make it more readable than the original commas. -- Daniel Mietchen 04:34, 5 May 2008 (CDT)

Sounds good. I've updated the ToApprove section of the metadata template for a re-approval tomorrow. Tomorrow, (May 6, 2008), if there are no new changes, the approved version will be replaced with the draft that is referred to in the template. Feel free to update or change that version as necessary using the same criteria for approval as the first time. --D. Matt Innis 07:38, 5 May 2008 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.1

Okay, this should incorporate the changes and the correction that we were concerned about. Congratulations on the second effort! --D. Matt Innis 16:24, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

Discussion for Version 1.1 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Further reading vs. bibliography

Why does the main article have a "Further Reading" section when it also has a bibliography subarticle? It seems to be redundant—all of its content is also in the bibliography. May I therefore remove the section? Joshua Choi 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this on a lot of articles, but am unsure what the policy is. So I am also curious as to what the official stance on this is. --Todd Coles 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this draft version up for Approval again?

In what way has it been improved over the already Approved version? As far as I can see, an S has been added to molecules and a book removed. Hayford Peirce 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the person who nominated it, but I was the one who took out those two books from the draft because they were redundant with the bibliography subpage; I recall that I put into the bibliography the one book that was not already in it.

What is the procedure for approving drafts? I don't know much on how it works, but is there a cost to approving a draft that has minor, even grammatical improvements? If there is, and so if it's not worth reapproving for the public a slightly "improved" version, then I would totally get not doing it. But in any case, I'd love to know how that works. Joshua Choi 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of complicated Copying, Pasting, Deleting, Moving, Protecting, etc. etc. by a Constable, which has to be done very carefully, and is, in my opinion, a royal pain in the neck. Re-approving draft versions is not meant for things like moving one book from one place to another, it is meant for major changes and rewriting, such as what's going on with the Homeopathy/Draft article. So what I'm asking is, Why has an Editor recommended this draft version for reapproval? Hayford Peirce 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you *really* want to know about the Approval Process, look at this http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Process I've also laboriously constructed a revised version for my own use, one that makes some of these steps clearer.... Hayford Peirce 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have started a Forum thread on this. --Daniel Mietchen 16:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

I don't think that CZ should be cluttered with redirects from various incorrectly spelled versions of a name ("Diederik") and all possible variants of lowercase/uppercase usage. A redirect from the surname (or disambiguation), and (perhaps) a redirect from (or to) the version with initials should suffice in most cases. The rest should be left to the "search" results.
As for uppercase/lowercase: go and search find variations anyway (I am not sure whether there is a restriction as to the number of words in the title. Peter Schmitt 12:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say cluttered? Is there any disadvantage to redirects? I can hardly imagine that disk space is an issue as they are so small and usually have one version only. --Paul Wormer 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)