Talk:Thermodynamics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Thermodynamics was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
June 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chemical and Bio Engineering articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


promotion[edit]

The edits, for example this one, by Editor K Sikdar, were in effect commercial promotion for an institution. Moreover, they were not improvements.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a promotion[edit]

The source is a video lecture by a government organisation in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Sikdar (talkcontribs) 13:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But a government organization is not in general a reliable source. Either way, the new words seem better to you, but not to other editors. I for one find them lacking in specific information such as is needed for that place in the lead.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course, lots of good scientists work for governments. IIT are Indian Government technical universities, I believe. Before dismissing the editor's efforts, lets encourage him/her to supply reliable and checkable sources for the suggested changes. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The main issue is whether the edit is an improvement. The sourcing is less critical.
The new edit reads:
Thermodynamics is a fundamental subject that describes the basic laws governing the occurrence of physical processes associated with transfer of energy or transformation of energy and also establishes the relationship between different physical properties which are affected by these processes.
In my view, this is vague and over-inclusive, to the point where it is not an improvement. There are many laws that govern physical processes. Thermodynamics describes only a few of them. The new edit fails to make this clear, and is in that way likely to mislead. The edit doesn't specifically indicate the nature of thermodynamics, and is therefore an unsuitable leading sentence. New sourcing, if offered, would not fix those flaws, considering the already supplied sourcing in the article. It would mislead the new editor to give him the impression that sourcing is a significant factor here. The main factor is improvement.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Useful. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I also felt that "thermodynamics is a fundamental subject" is unnecessarily vague and unsatisfactory compared to the original "thermodynamics is a branch of physics".--Srleffler (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

copy-and-paste from my talk page

Ok, so you guys are the wiki mafia I guess. Do whatever you like (including just deleting info). I am a mechanical engineer and I thought I knew better about thermodynamics but you are the experts in everything after all!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Sikdar (talkcontribs) 02:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No comment.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh by the way, could you tell me what was wrong about the edit? Should it not be there just because you guys don't think so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Sikdar (talkcontribs) 03:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

These were on my talk page.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I will reply here and not on my talk page, since this is a matter of general concern.

The question for editing purposes is not whether your edit was wrong, but whether it was an improvement. I have above tried to say why your edit was not an improvement.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Editor K Sikdar has made 4 reverts of the same material in the same article within 6 hours. He seems new to Wikipedia editing.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, look at his/her edit history. It happens. Thankfully this is not vandalism. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The 3RR is not only against vandalism. It is also against good-faith edits that cross the line. I am right now not seeking to enforce it, because the editor is new. But it should be noted.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

undid good-faith IP edit[edit]

I undid this good-faith IP edit.

The edit posted a reference, that I have read, about the notion of a macroscopic system in quantum theory. This is far from helpful at this point in the article. It would distract and confuse the reader. The thermodynamic notion of macroscopic system is defined without thought of quantum theory. The reference is focused on quantum theory.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

undoing a good-faith edit; why[edit]

Editor K Sikdar is new. He has put his citation in his edit summary. The citation should go in the text so that a reader can check it. The citation should give the page location in the source. It is best to give especially reliable and established sources in a topic such as the present one, for which the potential sources are legion. Engineering texts are reliable within their scope, but the present topic is not in the same scope as engineering.

As for the content of his edit. The part of the article where he placed his edit is structured as an ultra-brief summary, not an expression in detail. The edit inserts inappropriate detail.

It is far from evident that the "Kelvin-Planck" statements are to be preferred, even if it were granted that such detail were appropriate at that point in the presentation in the article.

The edit is not wrong, but doesn't fit where it is placed, and consequently does not improve the article.

For these reasons I am about to undo the edit.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Here follows in blue font a cut-and-paste from my talk page:

If you think that the Kelvin-Planck and Clausius statements haven't been put in the right place, then kindly put them in the right place but don't just delete them. I am quite sure that Kelvin-Planck and clausius statements are very important and need to be in the article. With all due respect, what Kelvin, Planck and Clausius have said about the second law is definitely more important than your opinion about whether their statements should be included or not. With that in mind, I am undoing your edit and placing the statements again. If you disagree about the position on the page where the statements should be placed, then kindly put them under the proper heading instead of potraying that your opinion is more important than what Kelvin, Planck and Clausius have to say about the second law of thermodynamics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Sikdar (talkcontribs) 05:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The above in blue font is a cut-and-paste from my talk page.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

My response: The place for these details is in the article on the second law of thermodynamics. I think they are already there.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Further cut-and-paste from my talk page:

Your second reasoning about the "second law o thermodynamics" makes complete sense. Thank you. Your previous reasoning was nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Sikdar (talkcontribs) 10:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

End of cut-and-paste from my talk page.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert to old version[edit]

I think in many ways the older versions are superior to the current article - for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermodynamics&oldid=417201632 . It's more concise, and I think the language is much clearer in most places (however it may be missing some important elements that were added later). I'm considering reverting to that old version (or a similar one) and then adding back anything that seems notable enough, but I'm asking for comments here first since it would be a major change. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Best to wait a few days because it takes a few days to read the present version. (Thirteen screens to six for the old.) Maybe put a notice in the physics project as well? This is the main article of a branch of physics. YohanN7 (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
No comments against, so I'm going ahead with the revert. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)