Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Am I missing something, or is this supposed to be of importance?
"In 1687 he reported his research on the coffee bean. He roasted the bean, cut it into slices and saw a spongeous interior. The bean was pressed, and an oil appeared. He boiled the coffee with rain water twice, set it aside (and probably drank it slowly)." 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to be amusing. Technically, the parenthetical should probably come out, since this is an encyclopedia.Eperotao (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this article due to vandalism by unlogged in users. If any person wishes to make a valid edit to the article and is unable to, please get in touch with me. SilkTork *YES! 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The part that says he is "probably at least acquainted" with the famous painter is followed by proof that he was executor of the painters will. I think that section should be cleaned up, it is kinda obvious he was "at least acquainted" 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Man's name was Anton van Leeuwenhoek not Antonie van Leeuwenhoek sithlo (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I am a 50-year-old engineer. Anton is the name I know too.
If I had a copy of Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology here, I would consult it. I read it cover to cover in high school, and obviously found it useful. Varlaam (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Is Layvenhook really the routine English pronunciation? I doubt I have heard that in 40 years, but then I did not specialize in microscopy.
I personally suspect that science teachers have liked saying Loowenhook. They were simply in the dark on this point? Varlaam (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It is commonly said that — unlike in German, where "von" implies a nobleman — "van" in Dutch has no special implication.
Beethoven used "van" as he was in Germany, and Germans took his "van" as a "von".
So why does Leeuwenhoek feel the need to be van Leeuwenhoek? Varlaam (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
He may not have "felt the need". For most Dutchmen, the "van" was literal. It's Dutch for "from", and if he (or an ancestor) came from a locality named "Leeuwenhoek", then the family would be "from Leeuwenhoek". This sort of surname can derive from a city, district, neighborhood, physical feature, or any other sort of landmark. The "van" in Dutch names is not about nobility; it's about family history and Dutch grammar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
One part of the article mentions that he made his lenses from tiny beads of melted glass rather than grinding them. Later on the article states that he ground several hundred lenses. Which is correct? Dposte46 (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
his best friends name was jade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this article complies with Wikipedia's editorial policy. It promotes what looks like a pet theory. We don't know for certain how Leeuwenhoek made his lenses. He said he kept some of his microscopes and techniques private. So it's quite possible that he used more than one technique. The current article asserts that Leeuwenhoek developed a novel flame-drawn technique that was only recently revealed through experiments. Instead, shouldn't the article state that there has been a great deal of speculation about Leeuwenhoek's techniques, and that recent experiments suggest one technique he might have used to make some of his best lenses? The current wording creates the impression that Leeuwenhoek misled everyone and that only now--centuries later--has the truth been revealed! Claudeb (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is an example of what I'm talking about:
Leeuwenhoek's interest in microscopes and a familiarity with glass processing led to one of the most significant, and simultaneously well-hidden, technical insights in the history of science. By placing the middle of a small rod of soda lime glass in a hot flame, Leeuwenhoek could pull the hot section apart to create two long whiskers of glass. Then, by reinserting the end of one whisker into the flame, he could create a very small, high-quality glass sphere.
This is presented as a confirmed fact, which it is not. The hypothesis and experiments that show it is plausible certainly merit inclusion. But the page should explain (as it does) that L. was somewhat secretive, that he probably kept his best microscope-making techniques confidential, and that recent experiments show that there is a flame-drawn method that could have been used to create his best lenses. Claudeb (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have reinstated the changes to the Dutch IPA information made by 126.96.36.199(talk·contribs·WHOIS) (), changing "ˈleːʋənˌhuːk" to "ˈleːʋə(n)ˌɦuk". All three contested changes, regarding (1) the optionality of the [n], (2) the absence of length on the [u], and (3) the use of [ɦ] rather than [h], are consistent with our page on Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, with our (well-sourced) article on Dutch phonology, and with the chapter on Dutch in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Fut.Perf.☼ 06:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)