 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
First para
editI've just added that it's a piece of chem apparatus- I think that the opening line/para should introduce what it is and what it's used for immediately, and then expand upon that later.
There could also be a note somewhere that this bit of kit is pivotal to several areas of chemistry (well, I think it is, I'd be lost without it), but I don't have a ref for this- does anyone else? Freestyle-69 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good edit, it is very easy to omit the "obvious". I also happen to agree with you that the old schlenk line is pivotal in many areas of chemistry. Be Bold, make the edit, if people hate your edit, you'll find out soon enough when it gets reverted. Sadly, I don't have a reference either. Quantockgoblin (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Still not keen on putting in something without a reference (old habits die hard...) even though many people would know that it's obvious. BTW I stuck a hyphen in "high-vacuum pump" just so it's clear that it's a vacuum pump that sucks real hard, not a stoned vacuum pump. The later phrase of "high vacuum" doesn't need this clarification. Freestyle-69 (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)