Talk:Graphene

Archives (Index)

1 2

Needs a complete re-write for non-physicists

It's lovely that all you physicists have had fun putting together this page and discussing its intricacies. For the non-physicist, however, it makes no sense whatsoever, from start to finish. This page is about to get a lot of hits - the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics was announced ten minutes ago - and no one who isn't a physicist is going to understand a single word. That's a shame. This page could explain why graphene is important enough to merit a Nobel Prize, and it probably does, but only to people who probably know it all already. 94.7.74.242 (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's chemistry, not physics :-D. And also, since when did we explain things in "laymans terms"? As I understand it, technical knowledge is part and parcel with encylopaedias... look at Mass-energy equivalence or Lead(II) nitrate. The latter probably makes no sense to a non-chemist, and yet it is a featured article. The former makes no sense to me, or non-undergraduate physicists... it's gobbledegook as far I'm concerned. However, that does not nullify its encyclopaedic value, nor its ability to convey ideas. They're just not ideas that I understand. I agree somewhat to your point about explaining the usefulness of graphine however I would purport that the usefulness is inherent within the article itself. I would also say that while the article is written with technical vocabulary, the concepts themselves are fairly simple ones, and indeed GCSE and A-Level students should in theory be able to grasp most of the article. Anikin3 _Help!!! ^Messages? 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the terms makes no sense to readers than the field of chemistry, which reduces the usefulness of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.118.10 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an easy solution that is hopefully agreeable to both parties which would be to have the introduction and the first half of the description be mostly in laymen's terms. These two parts should really serve the purpose of being a 30 second explanation of "What is it" from a laymen's perspective. There can also be technical terms, for example calling a kangaroo a marsupial in the first sentience is appropriate. Most people don't know what a marsupial is, but can click through and read the first sentience which is probably all they need to know to go back and continue reading the kangaroo. Or they can disregard it as a technical term and keep reading without losing much understanding. The goal of adding technical terms is to add more value for further reading and also help make sure that the "What is it" question is answer for chemists as well as laymen's. They just shouldn't be so overwhelming that a laymen can't understand the intro. I do NOT agree that the whole article should be in laymen's terms, as the laymen should be able to read the first couple of paragraphs and get all that he is going to understand about the subject and then can stop reading. Anythingapplied (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest someone change the STRUCTURE of the article. It consists of many, many very short pieces. It is difficult to read it as a whole. Zould some one please have a look? Thanks! 213.47.144.254 (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how's this for a reword of the introduction?

Graphene is a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon atoms that are densely packed in a honeycomb pattern. It is most easily visualized as an atomic-scale chicken wire made of carbon atoms and their bonds. The name comes from graphite + -ene; graphite itself is made of many graphene sheets stacked together.

The bond length between carbon atoms in graphene is about 0.142 nm. It makes up several different allotropes of carbon including graphite, charcoal, carbon nanotubes and fullerenes. It can also be considered as an infinitely large, exeptionally stable molecule, the largest version of the family of flat polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons called graphenes. The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2010 was awarded to Russian-born Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov "for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene".Anikin3 _Help!!! ^Messages? 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to note

It is interesting to note (see Talk:Graphene) that there were a number of previous attempts ...

I removed the above self reference (in bold) as I believe it is outside Wikipedia's usual style. -84user (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Kingsford Charcoal?

Um, Kingsford Charcoal? This is a joke I think? Or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.226.5 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's either spam/CoI editing, or somebody who thinks only the Kingsford brand of charcoal briquets contains graphene. Either explanation is silly at best, so I say it's a good thing that 99.233.73.144 edited out the brand name. But the Charcoal article doesn't even mention graphite, let alone graphene, so I'm not convinced that it's meaningful to talk about charcoal at all. Thoughts? (Btw, the Kingsford page here seems almost entirely copied verbatim from the company's home page, so the odor of advertising is pretty strong around Charcoal.) 70.89.112.185 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the article

It seems to me that there are technical problems with this article. Trying to get a PDF copy ("Download as PDF") the resulting PDF file starts wit the following message: WARNING: Article could not be rendered 84.206.43.2 (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

2D

If it's 1 atom thick, then how can it be 2 dimensional matter? 75.150.245.242 (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)