Template:Did you know nominations/Physical organic chemistry

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Physical organic chemistry

(

)

... that the term physical organic chemistry was coined by Louis Hammett in 1940 when he used the phrase as a title for his textbook?

5x expanded by RLM0518 (talk), Bisoxo (talk). Nominated by ChemLibrarian (talk) at 16:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC).

Comment: The hook should be supported by an independent source that credits Hammett with the first use (coining) of the term. Unless I am missing something, right now all we can verify is that he had a textbook with the term as its title. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Response: A citation is just added to the hook. The newly cited article mentioned "In 1940 a small volume by Louis P. Hammett entitled Physical Organic Chemistry; Reaction Rates, Equilibria and Mechanisms was published. The title neatly capsulizes the branch of chemical research which would become recognized as 'Physical Organic.' " Here is the citation added. Hammond, George S. (1997). "Physical organic chemistry after 50 years: It has changed, but is it still there?". Pure and Applied Chemistry 69 (9): 1919–1922. Thank you for reviewing the nomination! ChemLibrarian (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your work. The article was long enough and new enough when nominated. We can assume good faith that the offline references check out. I don't detect any copyright violations. The remaining issue is just that the article as a whole looks undersourced in some places. A general rule of thumb for referencing is that each paragraph should have a citation. You have a couple of sections that don't appear to be based on any reliable sources. If you can tighten that up, we should be good to go. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 10:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator needs to respond to remaining issues before the end of the year; talk page was pinged on December 22. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No response, and nominator has not edited since December 20. I was planning on closing this as unsuccessful due to the lack of sourcing on those sections mentioned by EricEnfermero (for example, the first and last paragraphs of the Quantum chemistry section and the first paragraphs of the Kinetics section and its Substituent effects and Solvent effects subsections). However, since I see that the primary author, RLM0518, edited on December 29, well past the ending date for the class that this article came out of, I'm going to allow another week in the hopes that the needed sourcing can be supplied. (By the way, I don't see a single edit by Bisoxo on this article. Can we safely assume that the contributions were made in the development of the article expansion, with RLM0518 doing the actual Wikipedia editing?) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the lack of response and understand that we are well beyond the customary one week granted for editing. I have been away from campus and unable to fix the sourcing on the paragraphs. I will be returning tomorrow and will work on it. Thank you for your understanding and patience as we learn how this process works. And yes, I, RLM0518, did all the physical editing to the article, but Bisoxo was an equal contributor. RLM0518 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and I'm glad you're planning to continue working on it. Thanks also for confirming Bisoxo's contributions. Please post again here when it's ready for a new review, or let us know how it's progressing if it isn't ready within the week. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I believe I have added references to all the paragraphs, but please let me know that I have missed something or if anything else needs to be added. I appreciate your understanding and flexibility. RLM0518 (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Good work here on a very broad technical topic. The submission was long enough and new enough at the time of nomination. I do not detect any copyright violations. The hook is cited and straightforward. My initial sourcing concerns have been addressed; this entry is pretty robustly sourced now. Good to go for DYK. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)