Talk:NMR spectroscopy/Draft

Formatting

Hello,

Does the formatting look fine? As you can see by clicking the history tab, and the compare button, one needs to put titles between "==" to have them appear in the Table of contents. If you wish to make subsections, just use "===" and even "====". However, Citizendium disapproves excessively "modular" articles (with many subsections), and prefers lively narratives, but I can see that you are certainly not going in that direction (the excessively modular approach)! If I can help in any way (I'm just an author, however), please let me know by clicking my user name and then the "discussion" tab, where you can "edit" at the bottom of the page.

I removed your signature from the article, because those who wish to know who has been working on a given page normally click on the "history" button. I will now create redirect pages, which will enable users to access this page using the different abbreviations and alternate names you provide.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 11:56, 12 January 2008 (CST)

Some formatting pointers

Dear dr. Talluri, welcome again. I hope that you will contribute more articles of the same quality. I understand that you don't have any wiki experience yet. Therefore I mention a few things:

The wiki software knows LaTeX enclosed between <math> ... </math> An indented new paragraph is started by a colon (:),

like this. Hence indented math uses   :<math> ... </math>

As in printed text (in journals etc.) emphasis is done by italics, not by capitals (and also not by underlining). Wikilinks are done as [[NMR spectroscopy]] and give NMR spectroscopy.

If you don't want to be bothered by these finicky details, don't worry, others (including myself) will fix it. It is more important that you share your knowledge and expertise with us than that the format is perfect. --Paul Wormer 03:32, 13 January 2008 (CST)

I didn't nominate for approval, but it says i did

I have no idea why the article says I nonimated it for approval. I have not even read it through yet. Any help appreciated removing the approval. David E. Volk 16:38, 16 January 2008 (CST)

Editors, this article is set for approval tomorrow. As it is using the group editor approval method, it requires three editors to be on the template. David appears to be suggesting that he has not recommended it for approval(it's a year old?). Unless I hear otherwise, the comment above means I cannot perform the approval. D. Matt Innis 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Way to go.

I see that the article is developing nicely, keep up the good work.--Paul Wormer 11:03, 19 January 2008 (CST)

The lede

This is turning into a really great article. We do need to improve the lede however to interest the casual reader. I have been refraining from working on the article so I could approve it later, but I forgot and wrote a liitle today, now we will need three editors for approval when ready. If we can spiff the rough edges, we can nominate for article of the week David E. Volk 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Approval potential

Hello editors, I see three editors on the ToApprove template above, but am not convinced that all three are ready to approve the version chosen. Please leave a message here so that when I return tomorrow, I can be sure that all three are endorsing the version number that you choose (please make that clear as well by updating the version number in the template). Thanks, D. Matt Innis 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)/constable

My name was incorrectly added to the Metadata template, without my knowledge, as an Approval nominator. Although I am a Chemistry Editor and a Physics Editor, I don't know enough about NMR to review or to approve this article. My name should be removed. Milton Beychok 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I will start reading it tomorrow (January 18) and need, say, a week. I can approve it by myself, but I believe that David Volk and Daniel Mietchen are much better qualified. When they have time that would be nice. In any case I will put my name down and January 25 as approval date. If Daniel and David need more time they can move the date forward (or is it backward? I never know, I mean later). --Paul Wormer 16:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)