Talk:Mole (unit)

not a textbook

I rewrote the introduction, and removed the worked-out example from the article. The example added unnecessary bulk to the article. Anthony Argyriou 18:16, 28 November 2007 (CST)

Can't agree with the rationale here for the removal of the 'textbook' style text. The assertion that this is not a textbook to make sweeping deletions, and I do mean large patches of text, is to be discussed here, not simply a decision to be reached by a single author. I have taught chemistry at the high school and the undergraduate level and can say from experience that as a basic concept in chemistry it is imperative that it be comprehended. Writing for more than one level of understanding is very much a function of a viable encyclopaedia. I have had a number of students here in New Zealand and in the States as well as teachers at those levels read this for their comments and the extended version definitely reaches a broader range of levels of understanding. The amended intro has received varied comments which indicates to me that it is reaching a higher level of understanding--basically those who already know what a mole is. It is the extended text that is giving vital concrete information so that the concept is generalised by the reader and that is needed to support the technical level of the introduction. In other words, if you know what a mole is, why consult an encyclopaedia? Furthermore, many of our better articles are certainly capable of being used as textbook texts. The biology article for example, has received good feedback from students and it certainly uses an expository register as one would expect in a competently written textbook. Please bring any objections to text and context to the discussion page before making such large deletions, as is the normal procedure here on CZ. --Thomas Simmons 16:17, 29 November 2007 (CST)

RE: Paul Wormer's rewrite: I think it reads very well. Explains some of the older references the reader might encounter to a greater degree as well. --Thomas Simmons 19:11, 4 December 2007 (CST)

I've gone through and corrected a number of mistakes and clarified the text of the article. The "textbook" examples are rather confusing and have fairly low content - if there are to be examples, they should be clear and more practically useful. I have separated the examples into a separate section, but have not made any changes. Anthony Argyriou 23:20, 7 December 2007 (CST)

Why did you delete the few words that remind the reader that a mole of water is 18 mL? Further you undid the high school-type mnemonics in the "loose" definition: a mole weighs as much as the molecular weight. I put both in inspired by the forum discussion on this subject, which taught me that this sort of thing is appreciated by non-scientists.--Paul Wormer 03:39, 8 December 2007 (CST)

The density of liquid water isn't relevant to the discussion of the concept of mole. The result that one mole of any gas occupies the same volume is far more interesting, and should stay, but pointing out that one mole of particular liquid will have a volume numerically equal to its mass is potentially confusing as most other liquids do not have this property. I'd missed the parallelism between "weight" and "molecular weight", though I'm not sure quite how useful that is, as it propagates an error (mass != weight). Unfortunately, the term "molecular mass" is uncommon, even though "atomic mass" is used as much as "atomic weight". Anthony Argyriou 10:44, 8 December 2007 (CST)

(1) Most people have an idea about an amount of water, and 18 mL (if I had known American measures, like teaspoon, etc. I would have added that) illustrates how much a mole of water is. (2) Lots of people, even scientists, still say something "weighs" some grams. But I added a sentence (that you removed) explaining that one shouldn't. --Paul Wormer 10:56, 8 December 2007 (CST)

Talk:Mole (unit)

not a textbook

Navigation menu

Search