Talk:Reactivity (chemistry)

This is a shortened excerpt from the En article. The source article is tagged with multiple issues. This selective copy doesn't fix any of the problems there. The sentence structure (such as it is-it's mainly bullet points) is not simple, nor the vocabulary. Gotanda (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Each bullet point is simple. Are there any words that you find is outside our vocabular guidelines? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, each bullet point is not simple. I would explain, and have tried before, but you have already refused to accept either subject-verb-object as the basic goal for simple sentences, or reading ease indexes. Since you do not accept either of these criteria, what criteria would you suggest for a definition of simple--aside from you just saying so--that demonstrates these to be simple? Gotanda (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for A3 is "Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change." That is not the case here. Racepacket (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And, it has to be simple. Still complex? Then that is little change. The lawyerly appeal to the rules is not helping. Either simplify, or stop copying and pasting. This looks like more disruptive editing. Gotanda (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look complex for me, imo it is ready for the move to the main namespace. -Barras (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced complex tag

These chemistry pages are very difficult to simplify. One issue is that this one is being simplified from an original En article that is tagged with multiple issues. Trying to simplify an article that is already flawed and only a Start class to begin with may not be that productive.

Linking to wiktionary is no substitute for actually simplifying the article. It shouldn't be the first option, but the last option. In this case, the link goes to the empty plural entry, then a reader has to click through again to get to a definition of circumstances which isn't even grammatically correct. That is not a simple way to read.

The non-sentence structure in the bullet points is simpler than it was on October 20, but may have been pared to the point of losing information. If read as a sentence as it is punctuated, it isn't at all simple. For another example of complexity, read the final sentence:

"Reactivity involves both the thermodynamics and kinetics of the particular chemical reaction."

For starters, that is unclear. "Involve" is vague to the point o Unclear writing is often not simple. What exactly does involve mean here? What is the relationship between reactivity and "thermodynamics and kinetics"? It is not explained or clear.

Some editors do not like reading scales, but in the absence of any other objective scale, they can be helpful. Even replacing technical terms with shorter "foobar" place holders like this

"Reactivity involves both the foobar and foobar of the particular chemical reaction."

gives a Reading ease of 39.6 and Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 10.7, and is not simple. Marking articles that are not simple with the Complex tag makes clear to beginning readers or language learners one reason why they may be having difficulty reading the article. I do not have time to explain every article in such detail, but this one is short. I think I've explained why this one does not seem simple.

Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)