Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spectroscopy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spectroscopy (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spectroscopy 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spectroscopy:
To Do Status
Article Category Status Action
Astronomical spectroscopy Application N/A N/A
Alpha particle X-ray spectrometer (APXS) Ionizing N/A Move to better name space
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
=Atomic absorption spectrophotometry
Electronic N/A N/A
Atomic-force microscopy (AFM) Not spectroscopy N/A Include or remove from project on consensus
Atomic spectroscopy Electronic N/A N/A
Auger electron spectroscopy Ionizing N/A N/A
Cavity ring-down spectroscopy EM/General term N/A N/A
Circular dichroism spectroscopy Light polarization N/A N/A
Coherent anti-Stokes Raman spectroscopy Vibrational N/A N/A
Coherent spectroscopy EM/General term N/A N/A
Coherent Stokes Raman spectroscopy Vibrational Stub Expand
Cold vapour atomic fluorescence spectroscopy Electronic N/A N/A
Two-dimensional nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy Quantum magnetic spin N/A N/A
Cross section (physics) Background information N/A Keep as separate category (Related)?
Deep level transient spectroscopy Electrical N/A N/A
Dielectric spectroscopy Electric Dipole (Bulk) N/A N/A
Dynamic mechanical analysis Not spectroscopy N/A Include or remove from project on consensus
Electromagnetic spectroscopy EM/General term N/A N/A
Electron backscatter diffraction Diffraction N/A N/A
Electron diffraction Diffraction Good N/A
Electron microscope General term/Microscopy N/A N/A
Electron spectroscopy Ionizing Stub Verify that this is correct not a repeat of Auger
Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy Quantum magnetic spin N/A N/A
Ellipsometry Light polarization Good some formatting improvements needed
Emission spectrum#Emission spectroscopy General term Stub Expand
Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy Ionizing Short Expand, Reorganize
Extended X-ray absorption fine structure Ionizing N/A N/A
Atomic emission spectroscopy#Flame emission spectroscopy Electronic N/A N/A
Force spectroscopy Not spectroscopy N/A Include or remove from project on consensus
Fourier transform Background information N/A Keep as separate category (Related)?
Fourier transform spectroscopy General term N/A N/A
Functional magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brain Quantum magnetic spin N/A N/A
Gamma spectroscopy Gamma ray Stub Expand
High resolution electron energy loss spectroscopy (HREELS) Vibrational N/A N/A
Imaging spectroscopy General term N/A N/A
Infrared spectroscopy Vibrational N/A N/A
Inverse photoemission spectroscopy Ionizing Stub Expand
Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) Ionizing N/A N/A
Magnetic circular dichroism Light polarization N/A N/A
Mass spectrometry Not spectroscopy N/A Include or remove from project on consensus
Metamerism (color) Background information N/A Keep as separate category (Related)?
Mößbauer spectroscopy Gamma ray Short N/A
Neutron diffraction Diffraction Stub Expand
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) Quantum magnetic spin N/A N/A
Photoacoustic spectroscopy Photoacoustic N/A N/A
Photoemission spectroscopy Ionizing N/A N/A
Particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) Ionizing N/A Move to better name space
Raman optical activity Background/Vibrational N/A N/A
Raman spectroscopy Vibrational N/A N/A
Reflection high-energy electron diffraction (RHEED-TRAXS) Ionizing Stub Expand, Move to better name space
Rigid rotor Background/Rotational N/A Keep as separate category (Related)?
Rotational spectroscopy Rotational N/A N/A
Small-angle X-ray scattering (AXS) Ionizing N/A Move to better name space
Scanning tunneling spectroscopy Tunneling N/A N/A
Spectral power distribution Background N/A N/A
Soft X-ray emission spectroscopy (XES) Ionizing N/A N/A
Spectral reflectance General term N/A N/A
Spectrophotometry EM/General term N/A N/A
Spectroscopy Main Article Good Improve links to main articles
Scattering theory Background information N/A Keep as separate category (Related)?
Spectral analysis General term N/A N/A
Stark spectroscopy Electronic Stub Expand
Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy Vibrational N/A Rename?
Terahertz time-domain spectroscopy Ultrafast N/A N/A
Thermal desorption spectroscopy (TDS) Not spectroscopy N/A Include or remove from project on consensus
Time-resolved spectroscopy Ultrafast N/A N/A
Ultrafast laser spectroscopy Ultrafast N/A N/A
Ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy Electronic N/A N/A
Vibrational spectroscopy Vibrational N/A N/A
Wavelength-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy Ionizing N/A N/A
X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES)
Near Edge X-ray Absorption Fine Structure (NEXAFS)
Ionizing N/A N/A
X-ray crystallography Diffraction N/A N/A
X-ray fluorescence Ionizing N/A N/A
X-ray fluorescence holography (XFH) Not spectroscopy N/A Include or remove from project on consensus
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy Ionizing N/A N/A
X-ray spectroscopy Ionizing N/A N/A

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.


Hi! I am writing an article about Functional MR spectroscopy of the brain. I am wondering does it fit under this initiative? Dcdace (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the current organization, it looks like this new article would fit most naturally in or . The latter is a subcategory of . If there are not dedicated project pages for either of these topics, feel free to create a topic on this page since fMRS certainly is a spectroscopy application.ronningt (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering about what people think about mass spectrometry in relation to this project page. Although it is not spectroscopy even though it is commonly mistakenly refered to as mass spectroscopy, it is at least as closely related as AFM.--Nick Y. 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass spectrometry is not Spectroscopy because it is not based on the physics of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter. This confusion has roots in the early days of chemical analysis when photographic plates or phosphores were used to observe the mass "spectrum". I will go ahead and remove this subject. Stephen (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
How about X-ray fluorescence? Walkerma 07:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Wiktionary definition of spectroscopy is 1) The scientific study of spectra. 2) The use of spectrometers in chemical analysis. Following a simple definition from that a spectrometer is "A spectroscope equipped with scales for measuring wavelengths or indexes of refraction." I would say with these definitions that mass spec falls into the scope of this wp. --Tjr9898 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely that this is the correct formal use of the term, although I am uncertain as to exactly how well defined the term is by this definition. I would point out some items in the list that fail this definition: AFM, Force spectroscopy & Electron microscopy. These should be removed from this project. Also, I can think of many that need to be added.--Nick Y. 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I don't think we need to be too concerned with removing anything at the moment. This project hasn't reached a size yet where editing will be spontaneous. --HappyCamper 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand...if we have plenty of redlinks we can add, that would be useful too. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers for an example list...about 6 months ago, most of the stuff was red, but now, we see more blue links! --HappyCamper 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should structure the project appropriately from the beginning. I would actually be more excited about this becoming more of a spectroscopy/spectrometry/microscopy project and being more inclusive. Just opening the discussion. Also I have noted some of those pages that are related background but not spectroscopy techniques. I have added some red links too.--Nick Y. 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The wiki pages for spectroscopy and spectrometry redirect to the same page. I say that so long as nobody starts calling MS a spectrophotometric instrument, or something equally silly, it should stay here. Zatnik (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

An idea...[edit]

For this project, I wonder if we can start an initiative, and obtain GFDL images for machinery representative of the methods listed above? It would probably be a good idea, considering that most people would never encouter such machines in their lifetimes... --HappyCamper 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you volonteering to write a nice letter to PerkinElmer? If so, let's make sure that we only hit them once, and with a suitably long list! Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
So long as the images are NPOV :-) Oooh...we have PerkinElmer too! --HappyCamper 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You can add Analytik Jena to your list. I am the applications chemist and erstwhile web developer for AJ USA. The images from our website can be used with attribution in the spectroscopy section. We make traditional AAS systems, AFS, high resolution continuum source AA, and direct solid sample introduction (Graphite furnace). Analytikjenausa (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Attenuated total reflectance?[edit]

Should Attenuated total reflectance be included? It is a sampling technique used in conjuction with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Alan Pascoe 21:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this WikiProject is in its infancy...there really isn't any agenda set yet, so whatever you think is appropriate would be a good! --HappyCamper 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Definitely feel free to add more articles to the list. Almost all of the articles were taken straight off of the spectroscopy. I just felt like it wasn't very well organized or have been updated in some time. --Tjr9898 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, still brainstorming...I think a good start might be some sort of organizational template. Something which shows up at the bottom of each spectroscopy related article, and indexed according to the energies/transitions that are involved. Say, a nice little box that lists from left to right, all the important classes of spectroscopy, and the approximate ranges of energies invovled in the probe. Something which might look like:

                        Types of Spectroscopy
    Translational     Rotational      Vibrational  Electronic  Nuclear ...
    * Example 1       * Example 1    * Example 1    * ...
    * Example 2       * Example 2    * Example 2    * ...
    * Example 3       * Example 3    * Example 3    * ...

Plus, to make it look really appealing, we might illustrate with a some schematic diagram. For translational, say, a ball that's sort of wiggling forward. Rotational, maybe some dumbell shaped classical molecule with a swiggly line shooting in, and et cetera for the remaining. This template could help us establish the topics and scope we want to look at, I guess in a "top down" approach. Now, I'm one for letting the Magic of the Wiki take over, so on the side, I think we should create lists of important articles, or classes of articles, and see what things need to be done. --HappyCamper 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, this does not cover all types of spectroscopy. We can make another analogous template for methods which should be classified differently... --HappyCamper 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I have made a first pass at categorizing the ones listed thus far. It is less than perfect. PLease give feedback. The way I see this is that all EM techniques can be divided further by energy/what quantum states they interact with: Radio, Rotational, Vibrational, Electronic, Ionizing, Gamma ray. Perhaps NMR and EPR could fit into Radio? Photoelectron based techniques are harder because they ionize but do not use ionizing radiation. Those that use electron beams I have lumped together. Electron Tunneling techniques clearly need its own category too ala photoelectron effect. I also put in a an ultra fast category. These techniques are generally broad band and group together well as both fast and broadband. Light polarization seems like a good but small group since they work on a totally different concept. There are also a lot of general terms that can't be pegged to a particular regime. In the ionizing category I have purposely put PIXE and Inverse photoemission spectroscopy and similar techniques that probe the X-ray/ionization bands by alternative means. X-ray crystallography seems to it teh definition of spectroscopy on the main spectroscopy page but really only fits the category of diffraction since ionization is not specifically studied. There is also a "not spectroscopy" category for those that do not seem to fit teh definition of spectroscopy but tend to be lumped in for one reason or another. PLease give feedback/ other ideas about organization.--Nick Y. 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that catagorizing spectroscopy types, EM regions, and quantum levels is a good way to classify things. There is the issue of black body radiation that may not fit neatly into quantum levels, but is nonetheless important. Spectroscopy can also be classified according to use or purpose or application: analytical, qualitative, physical characterization, probe structure, astronomical, and the like. There are methods and instruments used in spectroscopy: the physics of the measurement, direct and indirect measurements, sources, optical processing, optics of materials, instrument design, detectors, signal processing, and data analysis. Finally there is the theory of spectroscopy: quantum mechanics, energy transfer, photochemistry and kinetics. But there is no reasson to reinvent catagories here. Much of this classification has been done and is listed in IUPAC documents and textbooks. I don't want to inhibit this effort and will add content when I see fit. Stephen (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

NMR & EPR I have change these to Category: Quantum Magnetic Spin from NMR and EPR since they are truely closely related and this is more consistent with the other categories being the state being affected/probed/observed.--Nick Y. 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I took the listed articles and shuffled them so that the categories are in alphabetical order. The link is in the to do box and here. There is a plain list of the categories also. The question about dealing with background has been raised. Personally, I think we should keep the backgrounds as a related category. --Tjr9898 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles page was updated for the new Quantum Magnetic Spin. --Tjr9898 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
These categories still need some improvements. A good example is Auger electron spectroscopy It uses an electron beam to ionize core electrons and then observes multiple electronic transistions as the remaining electrons relax into lower quantum states. I guess I might call this ionizing, however it is not EM and it uses and electron beam so it fits there too. It isn't to distantly related to PIXE which I put in IOnizing even though it uses a proton beam since your observe EXAFS type data. I guess I am changing Auger to ionizing?--Nick Y. 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and Photoemission spectroscopy changed from Photoelectron and photoemission to Ionizing since ithey truely do probe the ionization potential spectrum--Nick Y. 00:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on changing photoacoustic to translational? DOesn't seem quite right to me but it would be more consistent?--Nick Y. 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Terms used for photoacoustic spectroscopy are quite established in the literature Stephen (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the categories in general??? Anyone?--Nick Y. 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be missing incorporation of articles on Hyperspectral imaging, Chemometrics, Photothermal spectroscopy, Two-dimensional infrared spectroscopy, Sum frequency generation spectroscopy. I don't know if one needs to get into the particulars within catagories like Nuclear magnetic resonance. Mainstream topics such as Atomic spectroscopy, Molecular spectroscopy (doesn't exist), Applied Spectroscopy, Nonlinear spectroscopy (doesn't exist but Sum frequency generation spectroscopy is a good start) should be Catagories. Stephen (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for feedback before I go too much further...--Nick Y. 23:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Project directory[edit]

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Analytical Chemistry[edit]

I have made major improvements to analytical chemistry I would like to encourage others to contribute and check my work too.--Nick Y. 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ratings in banner[edit]

I added ratings to the banner template (copied mainly from Wikipedia:WikiProject Beekeeping).

--Kkmurray 02:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks nice. --HappyCamper 11:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

High resolution solar spectrum image[edit]

Sadly, the high resolution solar spectrum image was removed due to copyright issues. See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:High_Resolution_Solar_Spectrum.jpg for the discussion. --Kkmurray 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is back, but this time in Wikipedia: 50 px --Kkmurray (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm trying to sort out isogenous, which has meanings in mathematics, medicine and spectroscopy. I have just changed it from a redirect to spectroscopy into a disambig page, but could not find anything useful to redirect to. The history shows there used to be a short article there. What I'm doing is to move the current page to isogenous series after reverting to the spectroscopy article, and putting the redirect back at the original. Would someone who knows spectroscopy care to look at isogenous series please? Richard Pinch (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Spectroscopy[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Emission spectrum + related articles[edit]

The merger proposal at Talk:Emission spectrum has received little comment, especially from people who would be likely to perform any significant changes. –OrangeDog (talkedits) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)


Someone made an article called spectronomy, which they claim has to do with ghosts (paranormal). They cite some paper that have to do with Fourier transform and I think someone familiar with spectroscopy should look at this article. Their references don't use the term spectronomy and my personal opinion is that this article should be posted on WP:Afd. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mößbauer spectroscopy[edit]

I found your group while carrying out a major copyedit of Mößbauer spectroscopy. It would be great if more experts would check my work. I would also like to help with further copyedits. Thanks. --SciHound (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of analogy[edit]

I would be interested to know the general opinion regarding the use of analogy in scientific articles to clarify difficult concepts for the lay reader. As a science communicator I regularily use good analgoies if I think they clarify the underlying science but some, I believe, see this as generally being off focus or patronising? --SciHound (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Proton NMR[edit]

Just a note on cleaning up the proton NMR page. The second paragraph of the article contains the following:

"Simple NMR spectra are recorded in solution, and solvent protons must not be allowed to interfere. A solvent without hydrogen, such as carbon tetrachloride or deuterated chloroform may be used. More commonly, deuterated (deuterium = 2H, often symbolized as D) solvents especially for use in NMR are preferred, e.g. deuterated chloroform, CDCl3, and deuterated dimethyl sulfoxide, (CD3)2SO (DMSO)."

The second sentence mentions deuterated chloroform as a solvent then the next sentence mentions it again when talking specifically about deuterated solvents. I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be easier to understand if the first mention of deuterated chloroform is taken out as it could cause confusion. Thanks Superdoofer (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes total sense. I would even mention the deuterated solvents first, and as a second alternative the non-'protonated' solvents (CCl4, CS2 .. ). Make it so! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Made the changes, restructured the paragraph and I believe it makes more sense, what do you think? Thanks for your help, Superdoofer (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Spectroscopy articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Spectroscopy articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking articles[edit]

I am checking article, flagging for refs and updating ratings. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Diagrams requests?[edit]

Hello all - while I was working on illustrations for experimental techniques in chemistry, I was distracted by the lack of any diagrams for the basic terms in spectroscopy. The following is an outcome from the effort, currently linked to Absorption (electromagnetic radiation). Please link the diagram on other pages that may be appropriate, and if you think diagrams of this style may be of use in other articles, let me know and I'll put it on my to-do list. Jon C (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

An overview of electromagnetic radiation absorption. This example discusses the general principle using visible light as specific example. A white beam source -- emitting light of multiple wavelengths -- is focused on a sample (the complementary color pairs are indicated by the yellow dotted lines). Upon striking the sample, photons that match the energy gap of the molecules present (green light in this example) is absorbed in order to excite the molecule. Other photons transmits unaffected and, if the radiation is in the visible region (400-700nm), the transmitted light appears as its complementary color. By comparing the attenuation of the transmitted light with the incident, an absorption spectra can be obtained.
I like your diagram, but I fear it's too ambitious, people who don't already understand it may not get too much out of it. I'm going to list everything it takes to really understand this diagram:
  • Definitions of emission, absorption, transmission, detection. [Nice...although showing scattering would have been helpful too]
  • Light consists of waves with perpendicular electric and magnetic field, in phase, with shorter wavelength corresponding to more violet and longer to red. I guess this light is linearly polarized too. [I would have left out that aspect altogether, and just used color alone (show a rainbow). Someone who hasn't already seen this depiction already won't be able to understand it. There's enough going on here for its own diagram if there isn't one already on this topic.]
  • Quantum energy levels may be depicted as lines on a vertical axis; each wavelength corresponds to a different vertical displacement (the energy of one photon of that wavelength). A circle sitting on a line is an electron, and the light can excite it to a higher level and get absorbed in the process. [Again, there's a whole lot going on in this step...more than enough for its own diagram if there isn't one already on this topic.]
  • A spectrum can be depicted with wavelength on the horizontal axis and # photons (I guess relative to the starting number?) on the vertical axis. (Should be "spectrum" not "spectra".) [No complaint here.]
  • Dotted lines indicated complementary colors [The relation between how something absorbs and scatters light and what color it appears is enough for its own diagram IMO, maybe using the example of a green leaf, where red and blue light are absorbed for photosynthesis. The "complementary colors" idea is part of color theory not spectroscopy. Also, I don't think you did it right with the dotted lines: The visual complement of monochromatic light does not look like any monochromatic wave. For example, if you cut all the green out of a light source, it looks reddish-purple, but there is no monochromatic light that looks reddish-purple. See CIE_1931_color_space for starters.... Anyway, you might as well draw the color of the transmitted wave correctly, but I think it's too much to try to explain or say anything about this topic.(Also, the particle in the beaker is miscolored, they should not appear green right?)]
  • Many types of light source emit white light, which is many wavelengths at once. [OK]
There's a lot of good ideas here, but my opinion is that packing them all into one diagram is too much for beginners to get a lot out of. I suggest simplifying this diagram by taking out some of the components, including the wave-depiction of light, the complementary color description, and the quantum-mechanical depiction of absorption. And eventually think about explaining some of those other ideas in separate diagrams.
Don't get me wrong, this is great work! Even the diagram as is, is much better than nothing at all! :-) --Steve (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Steve - thoughtful and expert comments, thank you. Some of your suggestions are already in the file description and annotations (I can't get the annotations to show up when the image is only linked to - they seem to show up only at the Commons repository). The annotations were supposed to be wiki-marked up as well, but I ran out of time before getting the links to work.
In the ideal world this diagram would be like the overture in an opera, where the major themes are alluded to, and pre-shadow the later story. Back to the non-imaginary world, this would be the first in a series, in which additional diagrams focus on the specifics; the set of diagrams would use an identical representation so the reader can intuitively cross-reference, compare, and build a net of relationship in the area that really doesn't have a beginning or end. (E.g., the idea behind the wavy-photons is that the article on optical rotation can be expressed with the same stylistic representation; cross-used in other articles like Second-harmonic generation to give a coherent style)
The first trouble with a set of diagrams is that I'm too confined in my discipline (ahem, ignorant :)) to place the subject in the wider context. Spectroscopy spans a huge range of disciplines for which I grok a tiny fraction, and I don't know which diagrams are most necessary, or what is the best way to make sure that the current drawing will be compatible with other phenomena we wish to illustrate. Hey, until you mention it, I didn't even think about scattering at all!
The second trouble with a set is that illustrations are time-consuming to do right, and to do up all phys/chem articles coherently is a noble but nutsy goal. I'm trying to put together a modular SVG of high quality "phys/chem concept lego" to free other contributors into building concepts they want to represent (as opposed to fidgeting to make things look right). I am concerned about whether the modular kit would be useful since there seem to be lots of photographers here but very few illustrators. I would certainly like to know the thoughts of experienced Wikipedians on the subject matter. Jon C (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers[edit]

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=, now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=|jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

{{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }} Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on commercial products[edit]

An article on a nanophotometer has recently been created. The article, as currently constructed, is a description of the implementation and applications of a particular commercial product[1]. Can someone with experience in this area take a look at this article and provide some guidance, to me and to the primary author of the article, on the appropriateness of it. The article does not currently cite the manufacturer or link to a website for the manufacturer, but it also makes no effort to discuss the technique in general or competing approaches. Has the article crossed a line?ronningt (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Astronomical spectroscopy[edit]

Hello, I'm a 4th-year physics w/ astrophysics student. For my final-year project I've been tasked with bringing a physics-related article on Wikipedia from stub/start class to at least B if not GA class. I have chosen Astronomical spectroscopy as it is one of my primary interests. As I work on the article I may ask for feedback and/or suggestions on improvements here and on the project's talk page, so if you're also keen on spectroscopy please watch that page. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the interest and good luck. As I've worked on science pages, I often use the articles on quantum mechanics and Raman spectroscopy as reference points. I really like both of those. Enjoy. ronningt (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Stationary wave integrated Fourier transform spectrometry (SWIFTS)[edit]

Greetings WikiProject spectroscopy! Editor Leelooleo posted a {{help me}} request on his talk page. Short story: he's working on an article on Stationary wave integrated Fourier transform spectrometry (SWIFTS) and wanted to get some opinions on whether or not it was up to snuff yet. Since the subject matter is far beyond my comprehension, I thought I would poke around for an appropriate WikiProject. If any of y'all have any time to spare, may I please request some eyes over at his article? Also, since I'm an idiot, I'm basically guessing that an article on spectrometry would be in the wheelhouse of a WikiProject on spectroscopy. I'm sure if I'm wrong you'll all have a hearty chuckle at my expense, and I have to encourage that. "Pfft! This pedestrian thinks spectroscopy and spectrometry are the same thing. Har har har!" Anyhow, I have no idea. :) Thanks for your help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: Article Stationary-wave integrated Fourier transform spectrometry was created 2014-01-02; it was edited through 2014-01-19; it is still there as of today. -A876 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Spectrohelioscope and spectroheliograph[edit]

Would anyone watching this talk page who understands the difference between spectrohelioscope and spectroheliograph be able to check those two pages for accuracy? I think there has been some confusion among the editors who created and edited these articles - see also my edit here and Talk:Spectrohelioscope. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ [1]